On Jan 5, 2004, Nathanael Nerode <neroden@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Alexandre Oliva wrote: >> You'd better document extensively such inconsistencies such that, >> when they're addressed, we can re-enable the cache, without the >> risk of urban legends about problems long solved holding it back. > OK, I'll try. > How shall I best document this? Hmm... `Extensively' may have pushed it too far. All I wanted was something that described the failure mode and the recipe to duplicate it, such that, whenever someone feels like testing whether the problem is gone, they can revert the change, try to duplicate the problem using that recipe (that should include a platform name and OS version number, for reproducibility) and, should it no longer occur, consider the problem as fixed. -- Alexandre Oliva Enjoy Guarana', see http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ Happy GNU Year! oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org} Red Hat GCC Developer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist Professional serial bug killer
