Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
reassign 107845 gcc-2.96
Bug#107845: Bug in package gcc-3 on hppa (compiler flag)
Bug reassigned from package `gcc' to `gcc-2.96'.
retitle 107845 -Wlarger-than-32768 broken in gcc 2.96
Bug#107845: Bug in package gcc-3 on hppa (compiler flag)
Changed
Package: gcc-3.0
Version: 1:3.0.2-0pre011014
Severity: important
Compiling the attached (preprocessed) source with gcc-3.0 on IA64
gives the following output:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/dum$ gcc3 -c timing.i
util/timing.c: In function `utilGetProcessorTime':
util/timing.c:55: Internal compiler error
Your message dated Thu, 29 Nov 2001 15:31:22 +
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line notabug
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen
Your message dated Thu, 29 Nov 2001 15:28:51 +
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line notabug
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen
Your message dated Thu, 29 Nov 2001 15:34:42 +
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line doogie is an arse
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to
So, is the final behaviour (aka: non-buffered output) the standard
behaviour? My guess is not ... if so, is there a way to fix it?
http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/libstdc++/27_io/howto.html#8
There is certainly a way to fix it. The problem is that every solution
that has been considered
On Tue, Nov 27, 2001 at 07:18:43PM -0500, Christopher C. Chimelis wrote:
On Tue, 27 Nov 2001, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
I look at this differently; it's our job to be accepting and GCC's job
to be conformant. With Joseph and others actively deprecating
extensions, that seems a better
From: Matthew Wilcox [EMAIL PROTECTED]
the example given no longer segfaults on paer.debian.org; i presume an
upload since has fixed this bug.
I cannot confirm it:
paer% gcc -O3 preproc.c
../src/basemath/arith2.c: In function `compimagraw':
../src/basemath/arith2.c:1219: Internal error:
- require changes to glibc
- thus fail to work on older versions of glibc
- may break support for older C++ compiler in glibc
- break the iostreams ABI of g++ 3.0.
To my knowledge, nothing has been done beyond considering solutions so
far, but you may ask on the libstdc++ list for
Nor do I believe that the HOWTO suggests that stdio is bad.
Well, it says Ditch C. It says so only to get my attention, but I
still read it as if you want to performance, do not use stdio (and
it actually says that).
Regards,
Martin
10 matches
Mail list logo
