bug 18212 closed too early (by me) ?

Tue Mar 8 10:55:00 GMT 2005

Bojan Antonovic wrote:
> Some months ago I reported bug 18212. In the recent days I discovered 
> (after MANY hours of code stripping and testing) that it can be splitted 
> to bugs 20351 and 20362. Because I thought that in the case when it 
> produced the ICE that the reason is exactly like in 20362 (missing 
> files), I marked it as a duplicate of 20362.
>> Now the problem: Bug 18212 was correctly reported. There's no simple 
> trick to avoid the ICE. It could be that bug 20362 is completly 
> independet of bug 18212 even if produces the same output! Or fixing bug 
> 20362 would fix bug 18212. Or many ways lead to ICE in GCJ ... (hoping 
> for not!)
>> The question: Should I reopen bug 18212, or wait until bug 20362 (and 
> bug 20351) are fixed to retest it and to reopen if necessary? Or both 
> (reopen and retest later) ?

As you can see from my comments in the latter two PRs, one
is fixed in the mainline by using the new verifier and the
other is something that I have not been able to reproduce.
However, I *have* been able to reproduce the same case
that Tom has been able to reproduce in PR18212.
So IMHO 18212 was closed a bit too early by you.
Thanks,
Ranjit.
-- 
Ranjit Mathew Email: rmathew AT gmail DOT com
Bangalore, INDIA. Web: http://ranjitmathew.hostingzero.com/