On Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 01:25:19AM +0000, Paul Brook wrote: > On Wednesday 19 December 2007, Joe Buck wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 01:11:11AM +0000, Paul Brook wrote: > > > > So I'm asking for a policy here that says when it is OK to resolve old > > > > bug without progress as WONTFIX or SUSPENDED. Start shooting. > > > > > > I think this would be a big mistake to reuse an existing state for this. > > > > But this is pretty much what SUSPENDED means; it means that there's no > > intent to work on the bug in the near term. > > Ok. I did check the GCC bugzilla help pages, and they don't mention SUSPENDED > at all :-)
Patches welcome, as they say. We have 91 bugs in the SUSPENDED state. Many of them are odd corners of the standard where we're waiting for the appropriate committee to decide what the correct behavior is; others are ancient bugs that we've just agreed to live with. The oldest one relates to the issue of extra FPU precision on x86.
