Re: Bug#356241: FTBFS with G++ 4.1: no matching function for call to 'simplify_indexed(...
Matthias Klose wrote: Richard B. Kreckel writes: Maybe it would be more productive to calm down a bit and let people play with that compiler a bit before making it the default. if you didn't play with it in the past five months, why would you play with it now? I didn't play with it in the past five months because it didn't pop up on my radar using aptitude. Fact is, I've been waiting for it, so this is no nonsense. I appreciate Ben's work to make the archive buildable with 4.1. So do I. Regards -richy. -- Richard B. Kreckel http://www.ginac.de/~kreckel/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#356241: FTBFS with G++ 4.1: no matching function for call to 'simplify_indexed(...
Richard B. Kreckel writes: Martin Michlmayr wrote: Your package fails to build with G++ 4.1. I'm filing this bug as important for now, but when 4.1 will be the default compiler in unstable (probably in a few weeks) I'll upgrade this to serious. Jeez, according to my available list, gcc-4.1 is not even in sid, yet. We are duplicating efforts since patches for gcc-4.1 have been applied upstream and I'm aware of them since a while ago. Maybe it would be more productive to calm down a bit and let people play with that compiler a bit before making it the default. if you didn't play with it in the past five months, why would you play with it now? I appreciate Ben's work to make the archive buildable with 4.1. Matthias -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#356241: FTBFS with G++ 4.1: no matching function for call to 'simplify_indexed(...
Richard B. Kreckel wrote: Martin Michlmayr wrote: Your package fails to build with G++ 4.1. I'm filing this bug as important for now, but when 4.1 will be the default compiler in unstable (probably in a few weeks) I'll upgrade this to serious. Jeez, according to my available list, gcc-4.1 is not even in sid, yet. Correct. It is in experimental though. We are duplicating efforts since patches for gcc-4.1 have been applied upstream and I'm aware of them since a while ago. Maybe it would be more productive to calm down a bit and let people play with that compiler a bit before making it the default. That's what we're doing. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings We get into the habit of living before acquiring the habit of thinking. - Albert Camus signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Bug#356241: FTBFS with G++ 4.1: no matching function for call to 'simplify_indexed(...
Martin Michlmayr wrote: Your package fails to build with G++ 4.1. I'm filing this bug as important for now, but when 4.1 will be the default compiler in unstable (probably in a few weeks) I'll upgrade this to serious. Jeez, according to my available list, gcc-4.1 is not even in sid, yet. We are duplicating efforts since patches for gcc-4.1 have been applied upstream and I'm aware of them since a while ago. Maybe it would be more productive to calm down a bit and let people play with that compiler a bit before making it the default. Best wishes -richy. -- .''`. Richard B. Kreckel : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `' [EMAIL PROTECTED] `-http://www.ginac.de/~kreckel/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#356241: FTBFS with G++ 4.1: no matching function for call to 'simplify_indexed(...
* Richard B. Kreckel [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-03-11 22:09]: Jeez, according to my available list, gcc-4.1 is not even in sid, yet. ... Maybe it would be more productive to calm down a bit and let people play with that compiler a bit before making it the default. What I mentioned were the plans according to http://lists.debian.org/debian-gcc/2006/02/msg00173.html I'm currently building the whole archive and I'm sure the GCC maintainers will take the results from that into account. From what it looks like at the moment, there are quite a few failures with G++ 4.1 because its stricter than 4.0, so I'd assume there'll be an announcement on d-d-a and a longer transistion period. (From the posting to the gcc list above it seemed to me that the maintainers thought the 4.1 transition would be easier.) Anyway, I'm about half-way through the archive. I'll report my findings in detail when I'm done. -- Martin Michlmayr http://www.cyrius.com/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#356241: FTBFS with G++ 4.1: no matching function for call to 'simplify_indexed(...
* Ben Hutchings [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-03-11 21:15]: Maybe it would be more productive to calm down a bit and let people play with that compiler a bit before making it the default. That's what we're doing. Note that Ben has done a great job sending patches to the bugs I've filed. If we all work together, we *can* switch to 4.1 relatively soon. The current status of G++ 4.1 bugs can be seen at: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?which=submitterincludesubj=4.1data=tbm%40cyrius.comarchive=noversion=dist=unstable Status * 76 Outstanding * 1 Forwarded * 1 Fixed in NMU * 2 Resolved * 3 From other Branch Classification * 55 Patch Available * 21 Unclassified -- Martin Michlmayr http://www.cyrius.com/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
