--- Comment #10 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-04-02 22:13
---
> It seems that many maintainers ar not doing the complete (and quite time
> consuming bootstrapping) during the non-regression period.
I think that is wrong as most are, just some forgot to double check. Like a
--- Comment #9 from malitzke at metronets dot com 2007-04-02 20:39 ---
I believe this report can be closed. I was able to find the start date
(2061125)
or a day later when I could no longer bootstrap. It disappeared towards the end
of January 2007. It prevented bootstrapping on x86 but n
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|critical|normal
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
--- Comment #8 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-19 03:55 ---
Okay, well, this is pretty simple.
If we can't reproduce the bug (and i can't, and andrew can't), we can't fix it.
So this bug is just going to stay open forever until then, regardless of
whether it's a hardware fail
--- Comment #7 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-19 00:24 ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> Mr Pinski
> I do not appreciate your comment.
But my point was I know if you having hardware issues you will have some issues
with segfaults and other random internal compiler errors. I
--- Comment #6 from malitzke at metronets dot com 2007-01-19 00:20 ---
Mr Pinski
I do not appreciate your comment. My comment 3 was really addressed to people
like you who want to garner points as beiong the big killers of problem reports
by using cheap tactics. With four processors and
--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-18 23:45 ---
Are you sure you don't have bad memory?
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
