Georg Lay <avr@xxxxxxxx> writes: > BTW, how does that bugzilla stuff works? There are bugs like > > http://gcc.gnu.org/PR20518 > > from 3.4.3 that are still hanging around or > > http://gcc.gnu.org/PR40935 > > that is no bug (older 1 year now). As with many aspects of gcc, bugs are fixed by volunteers and the bug database is maintained by volunteers. It is extremely helpful to the gcc developers to report bugs in the bugzilla database, because otherwise the bug reports will be lost. However, there is no regular process of going through all the bugs in the database and fixing them or reconfirming them. In fact, that is one of the relatively easy ways for people to contribute to gcc: by looking at bugs. Since you mentioned those two bugs, I took a look at them, I agree that they should be closed, and I closed them. > Then I get > > http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/avr-gcc-list/2010-11/msg00000.html > > so that avr-gcc fils to build for some recent 4.6.0 snapshot. Is this > worth a bug report (as just built from snapshot)? > What severity would it be? P1 as it blocks? But is not primary or > secondary target and just snapshot. So P2? P3? > > Is avr still maintined? I mean in practice, not theoretically... The AVR maintainers, as listed in the top level MAINTAINERS file, are active in gcc development. I assume they are paying attention to these issues, although I don't know what their priorities are. I don't know about the specific issue you mention, sorry. If the breakage is long-standing then it is certainly worth a bug report. I would recommend CC'ing the AVR maintainers on the bug report. You should normally leave the priority as P3, as the gcc bugmasters and release managers will set the bug priority according to their own guidelines. Ian
