Hi, On Sat, May 09, 2020 at 08:39:36PM +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: > On 5/9/20 12:31 PM, Arseny Solokha wrote: > > I'd also like to nominate the following two: > > > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52927 > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60158 > > > > which I also cannot close myself. There won't be any further revisions of > > this > > list by me. > > They affect given older versions, so if you just close them, that would imply > that the bug in question in gcc-4.5.3 has been dealt with - which I assume > is not the case.
We do not usually leave bugs not present in any release branches open. > So, again, I'm not sure what you gain by closing these bugs. Having them > marked > as open means that someone has observed the issue with a certain gcc version > and target. They will be marked RESOLVED WONTFIX. It means we (the GCC community) have decided what we will do here, and we decided to not fix this. > Moving it to "closed" just expresses that some people don't care about this > bug anymore. But it doesn't change the fact that the bug still exists. 1) We do not use the CLOSED state at all; 2) The bugs do still exist, and the BZs as well, no problem there; 3) Bug state never says what some people think about the bug. > The only thing you gain by closing such bugs is that you are reducing the > number of open bug reports and you can somehow claim you fixed a bug. I can't speak for Arseny of course, but the reason *I* want this is to no longer see all those powerpcspe BZs in my powerpc queries -- nothing ever changes to them, so it's just pointless distraction. Segher
