On Jan 11, 2007, at 10:47 PM, Joe Buck wrote:
The description of WORKSFORME sounds closest: we don't know how to reproduce the bug. Should that be used?
No, not generally. This should only be used if someone says, I compile foo on platform bar and it didn't build and then someone tries building foo on a bar and it does build for them. If the original didn't say which version of foo or bar or gcc they tested with, the person that gets a build out of it should report which version of foo and bar and gcc they used. Another case, is if someone says a virtual call doesn't work with no testcase, and if the tester tests the canonical virtual call test case and it works, then WORKSFORME seems reasonable.
INVALID (we don't know that),
A valid bug is one that is reproducible and shows a problem with conformance to a language standard, or a desired direction of the compiler. Everything that fails to meet that standard is invalid by this definition.
Now, if the bug people wanted to add an insufficient state, that would be better. Around here, we use verify/insufficient information. The user can then respond, or, eventually if they don't it then goes to closed/insufficient information.
