GDB `cannotfix' pr state, require PR with xfail `moving forward'.

[Andrew Cagney]

> On Fri, Jan 17, 2003 at 03:52:59PM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> 
>> >On Fri, Jan 17, 2003 at 03:12:35PM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote:
>> >
> 
>> >>
> 
>> >
> 
>> >>>In that case I'd want "broken in all GCC's" to be open rather than
>> >>>suspended.  Does this bother anyone?
> 
>> >
> 
>> >>
>> >>Yes, that bothers me, it would be wrong.  The only time a PR is in the 
>> >>open state is when no one has looked at it.  As soon as someone looks at 
>> >>the PR, it should be changed from open to some other state - analized, 
>> >>suspended, closed, ...
> 
>> >
>> >
>> >Substitute "a state other than suspended or closed".  Better?  Probably
>> >"analyzed".
> 
>> 
>> Not really.  Analyzed, I think, still implies that it is GDB's problem. 
>>  Suspended and closed, on the other hand don't
> 
> 
> We don't work in a void; ideally, we want to fix debug info bugs which
> are still present in current GCC.  It seems to me that tracking them in
> the GDB PR system is reasonable.

Tracking them locally is definitly reasonable, yes.  Someone finds a 
problem with GDB, searches the bug database and finds, that the problem 
is known and in tool XYZ.

> Hmm, maybe not, maybe file a suspended bug and reference an open one in
> GCC's PRMS.

Right.

Andrew