Steve Langasek writes: > Hi Matthias, > > On Sun, Oct 29, 2006 at 02:20:39PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote: > > gcc-4.1 4.1.1-19 in unstable now looks like not showing build time > > regressions compared to 4.1.1-13 in testing, validated on amd64. > > Lucas Nussbaum volunteered to build testing from 2006-10-24 with -13 > > and -17, the results can be found at [1]. The failures are detailed > > below and supposed to be fixed in either -19 by reverting three > > upstream changes, or in new packages uploaded to unstable. I would > > like to ask porters to do a rebuild with -19 on their architecture, > > where that seems to be possible within a recent time. > > Reviewing the changelog, I note the following: > > 4.1.1ds2-17 is listed as closing PR c++/29408, and 4.1.1ds2-18 is listed as > reverting this patch. Does that mean 392327 and 393010 should be reopened? > If so, have we just traded one bug marked "serious" for another?
no, reverting both PR c++/29138, PR c++/29408 lets all three test cases as reported in the bugs pass. > Bug #387989 is listed as "addressed" by another revert in 4.1.1ds2-18. > Should this bug also be downgraded? yes, done. > In addition, several of the "m68k" patches touch shared files: > m68k-java.dpatch touches java/boehm.c, m68k-dwarf2.dpatch touches > gcc/dwarf2out.c, and m68k-peephole-note.dpatch and m68k-prevent-swap.dpatch > both touch gcc/recog.c. How certain is it that these patches don't cause > regressions for other architectures? applied for the m68k build only. > > In summary the -19 package did see improvement with about 100 > > regressions fixed upstream compared to the -13 in testing. I'm not > > (yet) proposing inclusion of -19 in testing, but calling for testing > > on other architectures than amd64. > > Other than my uncertainty that reverting the PR 29408 change will actually > be a net win, -19 looks good to me, and I'm ok with pushing it into testing > whenever it's ready (which seems to first require manual removal of libssp0 > from unstable for those archs where you've dropped it). a bug report is filed for ftp.debian.org there maybe will a -20 to fix more arch specific bugs on m68k and alpha, I'll stay away from touching any C++ code at this stage. Matthias -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]