From patchwork Tue Jul 27 15:16:00 2021 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Patchwork-Submitter: Jonathan Wakely X-Patchwork-Id: 1510549 Return-Path: X-Original-To: incoming@patchwork.ozlabs.org Delivered-To: patchwork-incoming@bilbo.ozlabs.org Authentication-Results: ozlabs.org; spf=pass (sender SPF authorized) smtp.mailfrom=gcc.gnu.org (client-ip=8.43.85.97; helo=sourceware.org; envelope-from=gcc-patches-bounces+incoming=patchwork.ozlabs.org@gcc.gnu.org; receiver=) Authentication-Results: ozlabs.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key; unprotected) header.d=gcc.gnu.org header.i=@gcc.gnu.org header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=default header.b=lIsCwM+R; dkim-atps=neutral Received: from sourceware.org (server2.sourceware.org [8.43.85.97]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4GZ0kt5m1Rz9sWX for ; Wed, 28 Jul 2021 01:16:54 +1000 (AEST) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CE6E3861C57 for ; Tue, 27 Jul 2021 15:16:51 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 7CE6E3861C57 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; s=default; t=1627399011; bh=Ov2RVWlK3vO4UGxZS2SfWC4rxnqbjZMVJRswqrfehAA=; h=Date:To:Subject:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post: List-Help:List-Subscribe:From:Reply-To:From; b=lIsCwM+RYLa3yZ8KhaKZuTTeYgD2wOvX6YodS0zs3wyyhA7yiDfg+NtqAjf4fTXva nBn7VMlLSEO4/Jx3uXCQ81WHYF8e4TFE7sJnN1QfTd8ISV3+JK34SeJTdNut04ISMf /dnMS4n4qW+g9Z88vH+r0ut8jI7dm0M/3+PncUzI= X-Original-To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Delivered-To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [216.205.24.124]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 728F1384B13D for ; Tue, 27 Jul 2021 15:16:05 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 728F1384B13D Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-523-ccwafEN3MBSamHTWWh7oJg-1; Tue, 27 Jul 2021 11:16:02 -0400 X-MC-Unique: ccwafEN3MBSamHTWWh7oJg-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx08.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A986E107B786 for ; Tue, 27 Jul 2021 15:16:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (ovpn-113-85.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.113.85]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F2D719C59 for ; Tue, 27 Jul 2021 15:16:01 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2021 16:16:00 +0100 To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [PATCH] wwwdocs: Clarify meaning of "not issued by" in bugs web page Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.84 on 10.5.11.23 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Disposition: inline X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, DKIM_VALID_EF, GIT_PATCH_0, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_NONE, TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gcc-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Patchwork-Original-From: Jonathan Wakely via Gcc-patches From: Jonathan Wakely Reply-To: Jonathan Wakely Errors-To: gcc-patches-bounces+incoming=patchwork.ozlabs.org@gcc.gnu.org Sender: "Gcc-patches" Should we make this change? Firstly, these bullet points are full sentences and so should end with a period (or smiley, in some cases). Secondly, releases are not issued by the GNU Project at all, they're issued by the GCC release managers. Finally, "releases or snapshots of GCC not issued by ..." has confused at least one bug reporter, and I think saying "unofficial releases or snapshots" makes it slightly clearer. Comparatively few users actually use a self-built GCC based on official source tarballs, but that's OK. Distro builds tend to be much closer to upstream these days, and we rarely reject bug reports where the reporter is using a build from Fedora, Ubuntu, Arch or whatever (unless it really is caused by a downstream patch and doesn't reproduce with a gcc.gnu.org release). OK for wwwdocs? commit b7bf1f0b9f708673feeb13fcdbc1d461b82ad6d6 Author: Jonathan Wakely Date: Tue Jul 27 16:08:10 2021 +0100 Clarify meaning of "not issued by" in bugs web page diff --git a/htdocs/bugs/index.html b/htdocs/bugs/index.html index 80dac392..5143350a 100644 --- a/htdocs/bugs/index.html +++ b/htdocs/bugs/index.html @@ -102,11 +102,11 @@ three of which can be obtained from the output of gcc -v:

  • An error that occurs only some of the times a certain file is compiled, such that retrying a sufficient number of times results in a successful compilation; this is a symptom of a hardware problem, - not of a compiler bug (sorry)
    • + not of a compiler bug (sorry).
  • Assembly files (*.s) produced by the compiler, or any binary files, such as object files, executables, core files, or - precompiled header files
    • + precompiled header files.
  • Duplicate bug reports, or reports of bugs already fixed in the development tree, especially those that have already been reported @@ -114,14 +114,14 @@ three of which can be obtained from the output of gcc -v:

  • Bugs in the assembler, the linker or the C library. These are separate projects, with separate mailing lists and different bug - reporting procedures
    • + reporting procedures. -
  • Bugs in releases or snapshots of GCC not issued by the GNU - Project. Report them to whoever provided you with the release
    • +
  • Bugs in unofficial releases or snapshots of GCC not issued by + the GCC project. Report them to whoever provided you with the release.
  • Questions about the correctness or the expected behavior of certain constructs that are not GCC extensions. Ask them in forums - dedicated to the discussion of the programming language
    • + dedicated to the discussion of the programming language.

    Where to post it