http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55449
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-11-24 12:02:56 UTC --- (In reply to comment #5) > I have no problem to pay someone, I'm a bit disappointed seeing a bug closed > because "new version works" without investigate if the problem is still there > in new versions but not triggered by my test case. I'm a bit disappointed you think I didn't investigate. I'm a bit disappointed you didn't try a current release as requested at http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/ (or even the most recent 4.4 release!) I'm a bit disappointed you didn't reduce the testcase to something that doesn't include thousands of lines of boost code. I'm a bit diappointed you didn't include the output of 'g++ -v'. But I got over my disappointment and I tested with half a dozen different versions of GCC and looked for old bugs in the area which I know about. I didn't find anything, but the bug is not reproducible in current releases. Exactly how much time do you expect someone to spend chasing a bug that doesn't appear to exist any more? If you can reproduce it with a current release then reopen the bug, otherwise this is a bug in a release series that is discontinued and not going to be fixed. If you pay me I'll find exactly which patch fixed it, otherwise the onus is on you to demonstrate there's still a problem. > Also if 4.4.3 is not supported why while submitting the bug I was able to > target the 4.4.3? There are lots of existing bugs with that version, so it has to be a valid option, or we'd have to delete all the old bugs. We could make it unselectable, but that would prevent us fixing or re-categorising old bugs if we need to, and is it really worth the effort of customising bugzilla in that way?
