On July 29, 2015 08:41:16 PM Eduard Bloch wrote:
Well, did anyone here tell the submitter to report it upstream? I don't
see anything. Did anyone from boost maintainers did so? I don't think
so. Therefore, I wouldn't expect upstream fixes.
In fact, the original poster did submit a bug
Hallo,
* Dimitri John Ledkov [Sat, Jul 25 2015, 02:40:26PM]:
On 24 July 2015 at 21:08, Eduard Bloch e...@gmx.de wrote:
On Mon, 12 Aug 2013 10:52:39 + Thorsten Glaser t...@mirbsd.de wrote:
Source: boost1.54
Version: 1.54.0-2
Severity: important
Justification: fails to build from
On 24 July 2015 at 21:08, Eduard Bloch e...@gmx.de wrote:
On Mon, 12 Aug 2013 10:52:39 + Thorsten Glaser t...@mirbsd.de wrote:
Source: boost1.54
Version: 1.54.0-2
Severity: important
Justification: fails to build from source (but built successfully in the
past)
Hi,
Iâ ve not yet
On Mon, 12 Aug 2013 10:52:39 + Thorsten Glaser t...@mirbsd.de wrote:
Source: boost1.54
Version: 1.54.0-2
Severity: important
Justification: fails to build from source (but built successfully in the past)
Hi,
Iâve not yet had time to look at this, but my guess is
that bjam assumes
Thorsten Glaser writes:
Steve M. Robbins dixit:
Interesting, but this is an entirely different bug. Also, this new bug is
in
gcc, not boost.
Sorry, right. I’m just amazed that the boost compilation is
still continuing, and replied to the mail “thread” we already
had so we
On 30 October 2013 21:16, Mikael Pettersson mikpeli...@gmail.com wrote:
Thorsten Glaser writes:
Steve M. Robbins dixit:
Interesting, but this is an entirely different bug. Also, this new bug
is in
gcc, not boost.
Sorry, right. I’m just amazed that the boost compilation is
Steve M. Robbins dixit:
Interesting, but this is an entirely different bug. Also, this new bug is in
gcc, not boost.
Sorry, right. I’m just amazed that the boost compilation is
still continuing, and replied to the mail “thread” we already
had so we have the information in one place.
I’ll
Hmpf. That patch lets the build continue, but later gives me:
g++ -ftemplate-depth-128 -g -O2 -fstack-protector
--param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -Wformat -Werror=format-security -O3
-finline-functions -Wno-inline -Wall -g -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -pthread -fPIC
-fvisibility=hidden -Winvalid-pch
On September 7, 2013 08:43:26 PM Thorsten Glaser wrote:
Hmpf. That patch lets the build continue, but later gives me:
./boost/math/special_functions/ellint_rj.hpp:151:1: internal compiler
error: in subreg_get_info, at rtlanal.c:3387 }
^
Please submit a full bug report,
with preprocessed
tag 719484 + patch
thanks
This is the aforementioned patch:
https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/attachment/ticket/8993/boost_1_54_0-m68k-1.patch
-- Forwarded message --
From: Mikael Pettersson mi...@it.uu.se
Message-ID: 21003.14853.20671.257...@pilspetsen.it.uu.se
I've reported
Source: boost1.54
Version: 1.54.0-2
Severity: important
Justification: fails to build from source (but built successfully in the past)
Hi,
I’ve not yet had time to look at this, but my guess is
that bjam assumes natural alignment / struct padding,
which is not portable – implicit alignment
11 matches
Mail list logo
