I no longer have the tarball that contained the source tree that
elicted this problem.
Perhaps it is a good idea to close this bug as I am unable to further
persue the issue.
Anyway, let me know what happens.
Pete de Zwart.
--
$Id: .signature,v 1.2 2001/12/22 02:46:10 dezwart E
>>"Matthias" == Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Matthias> Manoj Srivastava writes:
>> Package: fastjar
>> Version: 1:3.0.4-0pre020127
>> Severity: grave
>> Justification: renders package unusable
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> My argument is that if one can't even install the package,
>> s
Manoj Srivastava writes:
> Package: fastjar
> Version: 1:3.0.4-0pre020127
> Severity: grave
> Justification: renders package unusable
>
> Hi,
>
> My argument is that if one can't even install the package,
> surely it is unusable?
sure, but I checked that it installs ...
>
> Setting up
Please could you recheck with gcc-3.0, and if this version doesn't fix
it, with the recently uploaded gcc-snapshot package?
Thanks, Matthias
Lukas Geyer writes:
> Package: gcc
> Version: 2:2.95.4-9
> Severity: important
>
> Compiling the current gnuchess source fails with this gcc (current woody
Package: fastjar
Version: 1:3.0.4-0pre020127
Severity: grave
Justification: renders package unusable
Hi,
My argument is that if one can't even install the package,
surely it is unusable?
Setting up fastjar (3.0.4-0pre020127) ...
update-alternatives: unable to make /usr/share/man/ja/man
Package: gij-3.0
Version: 1:3.0.4-0pre020127
Severity: grave
Justification: renders package unusable
Hi,
My argument is that if one can't even install the package,
surely it is unusable?
Setting up gij-3.0 (3.0.4-0pre020127) ...
update-alternatives: unable to make /usr/share/man/ja/man
Package: gcc
Version: 2:2.95.4-9
Severity: important
Compiling the current gnuchess source fails with this gcc (current woody)
and optimization set to -O2. The reason seems to be that statements are
not correctly serialized. Unfortunately I am not an expert in PPC
assembler but here is the code wh
Installing:
cpp-3.0_3.0.4-0pre020127_sparc.deb
to pool/main/g/gcc-3.0/cpp-3.0_3.0.4-0pre020127_sparc.deb
fastjar_3.0.4-0pre020127_sparc.deb
to pool/main/g/gcc-3.0/fastjar_3.0.4-0pre020127_sparc.deb
fixincludes_3.0.4-0pre020127_sparc.deb
to pool/main/g/gcc-3.0/fixincludes_3.0.4-0pre020127_spa
Installing:
gcc-snapshot_20020127-1_sparc.deb
to pool/main/g/gcc-snapshot/gcc-snapshot_20020127-1_sparc.deb
Thank you for your contribution to Debian.
Your message dated Tue, 29 Jan 2002 15:04:14 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#131428: fixed in gcc-defaults 0.18
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 message dated Tue, 29 Jan 2002 15:03:53 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#128178: fixed in gcc-3.0 1:3.0.4ds0-0pre020127
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 cas
Your message dated Tue, 29 Jan 2002 15:03:53 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#127805: fixed in gcc-3.0 1:3.0.4ds0-0pre020127
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 cas
Your message dated Tue, 29 Jan 2002 15:03:53 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#127571: fixed in gcc-3.0 1:3.0.4ds0-0pre020127
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 cas
Your message dated Tue, 29 Jan 2002 15:03:53 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#127111: fixed in gcc-3.0 1:3.0.4ds0-0pre020127
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 cas
Your message dated Tue, 29 Jan 2002 15:03:53 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#126218: fixed in gcc-3.0 1:3.0.4ds0-0pre020127
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 cas
Your message dated Tue, 29 Jan 2002 15:03:53 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#118648: fixed in gcc-3.0 1:3.0.4ds0-0pre020127
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 cas
Your message dated Tue, 29 Jan 2002 15:03:53 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#118391: fixed in gcc-3.0 1:3.0.4ds0-0pre020127
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 cas
Your message dated Tue, 29 Jan 2002 15:03:53 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#104250: fixed in gcc-3.0 1:3.0.4ds0-0pre020127
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 cas
Installing:
cpp-3.0-doc_3.0.4-0pre020127_all.deb
to pool/main/g/gcc-3.0/cpp-3.0-doc_3.0.4-0pre020127_all.deb
cpp-3.0_3.0.4-0pre020127_i386.deb
to pool/main/g/gcc-3.0/cpp-3.0_3.0.4-0pre020127_i386.deb
fastjar_3.0.4-0pre020127_i386.deb
to pool/main/g/gcc-3.0/fastjar_3.0.4-0pre020127_i386.deb
f
Installing:
chill_2.95.4-11_i386.deb
to pool/main/g/gcc-defaults/chill_2.95.4-11_i386.deb
cpp_2.95.4-11_i386.deb
to pool/main/g/gcc-defaults/cpp_2.95.4-11_i386.deb
g++_2.95.4-11_i386.deb
to pool/main/g/gcc-defaults/g++_2.95.4-11_i386.deb
g77_2.95.4-11_i386.deb
to pool/main/g/gcc-defaults/g
Installing:
gcc-snapshot_20020127-1.diff.gz
to pool/main/g/gcc-snapshot/gcc-snapshot_20020127-1.diff.gz
gcc-snapshot_20020127-1.dsc
to pool/main/g/gcc-snapshot/gcc-snapshot_20020127-1.dsc
gcc-snapshot_20020127-1_i386.deb
to pool/main/g/gcc-snapshot/gcc-snapshot_20020127-1_i386.deb
gcc-snapsh
On Tue, Jan 29, 2002 at 07:30:47PM +0200, Alexei Khlebnikov wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Jan 2002 11:03:02 -0500 (EST)
> "Christopher C. Chimelis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> CCC> On Tue, 29 Jan 2002, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
>
> >> > I have a problem: my shared library cannot be linked, because it's t
On Tue, 29 Jan 2002 11:03:02 -0500 (EST)
"Christopher C. Chimelis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
CCC> On Tue, 29 Jan 2002, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
>> > I have a problem: my shared library cannot be linked, because it's too
>> > big (all objs are 140 megs in size). I compile sources with "-g" option
Package: gcc-defaults
Version: 0.17
Severity: serious
Justification: ia64 being out of date will keep it out of testing
AFAICS this is a packaging error and not katie going crazy ?
| To: Debian/IA64 non-US Build Daemon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| From: Debian Installer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| Subject: gc
On Tue, 29 Jan 2002, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 28, 2002 at 05:52:40PM +0200, Alexei Khlebnikov wrote:
> > Hello all.
> >
> > I have a problem: my shared library cannot be linked, because it's too big
> > (all objs are 140 megs in size). I compile sources with "-g" option. As I
On Mon, Jan 28, 2002 at 05:52:40PM +0200, Alexei Khlebnikov wrote:
> Hello all.
>
> I have a problem: my shared library cannot be linked, because it's too big
> (all objs are 140 megs in size). I compile sources with "-g" option. As I
> understand, g++ produces level 2 debug info in stubs+ forma
Package: gcc-3.0
Version: 1:3.0.3-1
Severity: normal
Hi,
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~% cat bug.c
struct descr {
int len;
char data[];
};
int foo() {
struct descr s1 = { 3, "FOO" };
}
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~% /usr/bin/gcc-3.0 bug.c
bug.c: In function `foo':
bug.c:6: Internal error: Segmentation fa
Hello all.
I have a problem: my shared library cannot be linked, because it's too big (all
objs are 140 megs in size). I compile sources with "-g" option. As I
understand, g++ produces level 2 debug info in stubs+ format.
I want to use breakpoints and see stack backtraces. Can I switch to level
28 matches
Mail list logo
