Bug#929966: g++-8: ICE (SIGILL in collect2) building musescore-snapshot on riscv64
Hi, Em qua, 5 de jun de 2019 às 20:06, Thorsten Glaser escreveu: > > Dear porters, could you please… > > Matthias Klose dixit: > > >Control: tags -1 + moreinfo > > > >please add the preprocessed source. > > … because I’ve just seen this fail in the buildd QA. The machine was in a not very good state, I am giving the package back. If the problem persists I can try to look at it closer during the weekend. Cheers. -- Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo
Bug#892217: [PATCH] libffi: Please add support for the riscv64 architecture
Hi, 2018-03-13 16:21 Matthias Klose: Source: libffi Source-Version: 3.3~20180313-1 We believe that the bug you reported is fixed in the latest version of libffi, which is due to be installed in the Debian FTP archive. [...] libffi (3.3~20180313-1) experimental; urgency=medium . * Snapshot, taken from the trunk. - Add RISC-V support. Closes: #892217. Thanks for the quick fix! It was built "natively" and passes the tests :) --- === libffi tests === Schedule of variations: unix Running target unix Using /usr/share/dejagnu/baseboards/unix.exp as board description file for target. Using /usr/share/dejagnu/config/unix.exp as generic interface file for target. Using ../../testsuite/config/default.exp as tool-and-target-specific interface file. Running ../../testsuite/libffi.bhaible/bhaible.exp ... Running ../../testsuite/libffi.call/call.exp ... Running ../../testsuite/libffi.complex/complex.exp ... Running ../../testsuite/libffi.go/go.exp ... === libffi Summary === # of expected passes3495 # of unsupported tests 30 -- Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo
Bug#783908: cpp still conflicts with mips and mipsel cross compilers
Hi, 2015-07-24 07:15 Helmut Grohne: Hi Matthias, cpp still has some bogus conflicts left. It seems that you forgot to remove them when you closed this bug. Thus I reopened it. Since the mips and mipsel cross compilers in the archive are now built standalone, I assume that these conflicts can just be removed as well. (just doing some bug triaging...) Is this still an issue? The bug was closed by spam and then reopened, but it looks to me that if the only remaining issues were with mips and mipsel back in 2015, there's a good chance that this has since been fixed. Cheers. -- Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo
Bug#743673: libiberty: Update config.{sub,guess} with autotools-dev
Source: libiberty
Version: 20131116-1
Severity: normal
Tags: patch
Please use autotools-dev (or dh-autoreconf) to keep the
config.{sub,guess} files up to date.
I can do an NMU if you want, but probably it's a better idea if you
make the changes yourself.
Cheers.
--
Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo
libiberty_20131116-1.1.dsc.nmu-diff
Description: Binary data
Bug#686645: Compiling code with -O3 results to segfault in binary
forwarded 686645 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54569 stop Setting forwarded address to better keep track of changes in upstream BTS. Cheers. -- Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-gcc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/capq4b8mgelh5ltt9fu3uski2xcergvobrpng1h0cf1oeo+h...@mail.gmail.com
Bug#268115: [PR 18589] could optimize FP multiplies better
Hello, Thanks for the detailed bug reports and your interest in improving Debian. I'm just doing some cleanup, I am not involved with the GCC package. It seems that very recently the issue was picked by somebody upstream and they fixed it. According to the information in the upstream bug report [1], it's going to be released in 4.8 series. [1] http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18589 Test the patch if you are interested, and stay tuned. And please somebody close the bug report when this version of GCC is included in Debian. Regards. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-gcc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/capq4b8ktvwmzra3+spa03dpfdyl95gnrfowkkdp4b9wov5e...@mail.gmail.com
Bug#173513: [PR optimization/9079] Inline constant function pointers
tags 173513 - fixed-upstream stop Hello, It seems that the bug is not fixed-upstream despite being tagged as such a while ago, so removing the tag by hand. Regards. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-gcc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/capq4b8kufmm6tnddprhxskulgtk1ja1qfg6dxnxut+viqt6...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Handling GCC-related orphan bugs
2012/4/14, Matthias Klose : > I think any reassigments would be wrong. It needs somebody to go through the > list of bugs to see if these are fixed. if yes, close them, if not, then > reassign them to the package they can be reproduced with. Do you volunteer > to do this? I can try. But I'm leaving tomorrow for a few days of holidays... so if somebody beats me to it, I won't complain ;-) (emacs folks happen to have 400+ orphaned packages and kernel folks more than a hundred, I cannot cope with all of them besides the one that I myself have ;) ). Cheers. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-gcc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/capq4b8n+pva8_gihbwe3sz-ayim_g+4pfdz+cq94qwjxxpu...@mail.gmail.com
Handling GCC-related orphan bugs
Hello I noticed that there are these orphan bugs (no maintainer set, the package that they are filed against is not present in Debian anymore). Perhaps there are some false positives or missing ones. They were gathered from [1], and the ones related to GCC are filteerd and pasted in the attached file (the list "flattened" to single lines in a text file, easy to parse e.g. to extract bug numbers and reassign in bulk). [1] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?maint= ^- (yes, with empy "maint" parameter) What should be done with them, reassign? To which package, then? Cheers. PS: Not subscribed to the list. gcc-bugs-filtered Description: Binary data
Bug#649940: gdc-4.6: Off-by-one error in output file name
2011/11/24 Peter De Wachter : > Package: gdc-4.6 > Version: 0.29.1-4.6.2-1 > Severity: normal > > If no '-c' option is specified, gdc doesn't generate the right output file > name: > > $ gdc-4.6 -c HelloWorld.d > $ ls > HelloWorld.d > HelloWorl.o I spotted that one too, and I was about to report it. However, I think that you mean "if no *-o* option is specified". Cheers. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-gcc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CAPQ4b8mePnP6GyCYFxC_Fn1PV6cJnV4h7eXK+5DacaHU=da...@mail.gmail.com
Re: freeze exception for gcc-4.5 (i386, amd64 only)
Hello, Sorry for cross-posting if not appropriate, I'm just preserving the e-mail headers. On Friday 20 August 2010 11:34:51 Neil McGovern wrote: > On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 05:17:32PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote: > > >I'm not sure there are any in the original, plugins and a greater > > >optimisation level certainly aren't things which will solve specific > > >problems. Could you highlight them for me? > > > > Having these features available for developers, and having not to > > wait two years until these appear in a stable release is worth the > > update. Exposing a new compiler version to upstream developers > > helps reducing the delta between upstream and debian packages. Yes I > > think this is worth having it in squeeze. > > I don't think that stable is the place for doing active development. I realize that being a Release Manager, part of the task assigned is deciding precisely things like this, which is appropriate for which distribution (at least for the stable). However, I don't think that it makes much sense to say that stable is not a place for doing active development. In places in which I work or worked in the past, using anything other than stable (Debian, Scientific Linux, whatever) is not an option, and so the development is done with whatever tools happen to be there. Is it a better solution to force these people to use the package from the next testing or backports, if they need it for any reason? I can agree that by Debian standards using 4.5 to compile the whole archive with 4.5 might be considered "risky" (at least for some archs), but I fail to see what's the harm of shipping 4.5 as an *option*. > Given that there doesn't seem to be any compelling reason for gcc4.5 in > squeeze, I'm afraid it's not going to make it for this release. The argument can be reversed. There is no compelling reason for a developer to use 4.4 series when 4.5 was released 4 months ago (which will be probably more than 6 to a year by the time the release happens), if there is not a specific problem with the new version. Fast forward 1.5 to 2 years, when Squeeze is about to be EOL'd. Why would you use software 3 years old, with maintainance releases maybe stopped since long, with several major versions released since then? Cheers. -- Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-gcc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201008201226.29919.manuel.montez...@gmail.com
Bug#558999: FTBFS [hppa] - recompile with -ffunction-sections
Hello, #588923 ( http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=588923 ) looks similar to this one, Roland Stigge pointed to this bug report. I saw that you got it compiled by using -mlong-calls in addition to - ffunction-sections, but it doesn't seem to work in this case. Any hints or suggestions? Should I reassign the bug to gcc-4.4 or something? Cheers. -- Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-gcc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201008130107.24106.manuel.montez...@gmail.com
