C++ FAIL counts and the effect of demangler fix

[Andrew Cagney]

Michael Elizabeth Chastain wrote:

> > It would be nice if the problems were resolved, however, they are _NOT_
> > a 5.1 release criteria so not especially high on my radar.  5.1 needs
> > to work with real compilers installed on real machines.
> 
> I respectfully disagree.  I think gdb 5.1 needs to be ready for gcc 3.0.

I can see why both of you might disagree, however my position stands.
Remember:

	o	I'm not stopping you trying to fix
		all the bugs.  I'm just stopping you
		making that last critical bug/feature
		(minus the next one) the reason to delay
		the release of GDB 5.1.

	o	we're trying to move to a situtation where
		there are more frequent releases of GDB
		(and I'm failing dismally).  Right now
		5.1 is effectivly stuck because it
		needs SPARC/Linux fixed.

	o	I don't want GDB's release schedule in
		someway directly tided to GCC's release
		schedule.

I also posted this decision to the discussion list and at the time I had
ZERO responses.

	Andrew