Title:
.
.
.
: /
**
/
:055-277-9919 :055-277-9916 H.P:011-597-9514
http://www.giftnala.co.kr
[ ]
[]
Title:
.
.
.
: /
**
/
:055-277-9919 :055-277-9916 H.P:011-597-9514
http://www.giftnala.co.kr
[ ]
[]
Christopher C. Chimelis writes:
Speaking of bugs, can you take back 126162? I've
fixed my part of it already and the ball's back in your court.
unsure, who gets the ball, but not me/gcc. I tried to build an old
gcc-3.0.2 debian package and an upstream 3.0.3 package on vore. All
show the same
On Sat, Jan 05, 2002 at 01:39:58AM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
Christopher C. Chimelis writes:
Speaking of bugs, can you take back 126162? I've
fixed my part of it already and the ball's back in your court.
unsure, who gets the ball, but not me/gcc. I tried to build an old
gcc-3.0.2
On Sat, Dec 29, 2001 at 12:40:03PM +0100, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
On Sat, Dec 29, 2001 at 12:02:07AM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
This is inconsistent with the behavior of (the undocumented) -profile
on Linux, IIRC; there it links in -lc_p but does not imply -pg. Of
course, perhaps that
Package: gcc-3.0
Version: 1:3.0.3-1
I don't know if it's valid for this bug report, but all code I have tried is
slower in g++ 3, here's a simple example:
(numbers first, code in the bottom)
mbp:~$ g++ benchmark.cpp ; ls -l a.out ; time a.out ; g++-3.0 benchmark.cpp
; ls -l a.out ; time a.out
But an unexpected failure suggests a new error. That should fail and
stop the build.
That impression is incorrect. An unexpected failure may or may not be
a new error. If you are concerned about unexpected failures, you'd
have to investigate them. Stopping the build is not appropriate, since
On Sat, 5 Jan 2002, Matthias Klose wrote:
Christopher C. Chimelis writes:
Speaking of bugs, can you take back 126162? I've
fixed my part of it already and the ball's back in your court.
unsure, who gets the ball, but not me/gcc. I tried to build an old
gcc-3.0.2 debian package and an
Ben Collins writes:
On Sat, Jan 05, 2002 at 01:39:58AM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
Christopher C. Chimelis writes:
Speaking of bugs, can you take back 126162? I've
fixed my part of it already and the ball's back in your court.
unsure, who gets the ball, but not me/gcc. I tried
Your message dated Sat, 5 Jan 2002 03:10:20 +0100
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#127783: gcc-3.0-source: java selftest fail
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
10 matches
Mail list logo
