On Fri, 15 Feb 2002, Scott Venier wrote:
> any chance you have a similar patch to qlogicisp.c? I'm getting a panic
> on line 1047 (in 2.4.17's version of qlogicisp.c). Though, I also got
> that panic using gcc 2.95.2, but not using gcc 2.96 (not sure which
> particular one).
I don't know mu
On Wed, 13 Feb 2002, Christopher C. Chimelis wrote:
> I'm attaching a patch for the SMP problem. I think gcc is generating bad
> code, but the function that it's generating bad code for is
> unnecessary. Unfortunately, upstream kernel people never saw fit to
> accept this patch.
>
any chance you
Title: ♧♡★ "플라워도사" 가라사대...
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> tags 134051 + pending
Bug#134051: unstable/arm: typo in arm specific debian_patches
Tags added: pending
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> reassign 130394 gcc-2.95
Bug#130394: [ARM] gcc misunhandle % with unsigned long operands
Bug reassigned from package `gcc' to `gcc-2.95'.
> severity 130394 important
Bug#130394: [ARM] gcc misunhandle % with unsigned long operands
Severity set to `impor
reassign 130394 gcc-2.95
severity 130394 important
forwarded 130394 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
tags 130394 + patch
tags 130394 + upstream
tags 130394 + fixed
retitle 130394 [PR 5700] [ARM; fixed in 3.0] bug in __umodsi3
thanks
The reason this one didn't show up with a cross-compiler is that the bug
is in t
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> severity 133935 serious
Bug#133935: 3.0.19 net-install impossible
Severity set to `serious'.
> merge 133935 123948
Bug#123948: woody CD not passing 'cdrom' argument
Bug#133935: 3.0.19 net-install impossible
Merged 123948 133935.
> tags 130394 - potato
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> tags 129573 patch
Bug#129573: scalapack_1.7-3 (unstable): fails to build
Tags added: patch
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
tags 129573 patch
thanks
Well, I think this patch will fix the immediate problem at hand. I've
no idea why CONST_DOUBLEs were being rejected previously, so it's
possible that this isn't a safe thing to do. I guess someone needs to
take it up with the upstream gcc folk.
p.
Index: linux.h
==
On Fri, 2002-02-15 at 11:41, Othmar Pasteka wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 15, 2002 at 11:23:00AM +, Phil Blundell wrote:
> > > should be more like
> > > arm-gnu-source because the patch is named arm-gnu-source.dpatch.
> >
> > Can you make a binary-only upload with that change? I don't think it's
>
>
hi,
On Fri, Feb 15, 2002 at 11:23:00AM +, Phil Blundell wrote:
> > should be more like
> > arm-gnu-source because the patch is named arm-gnu-source.dpatch.
>
> Can you make a binary-only upload with that change? I don't think it's
sure. should i add an entry in the changelog, probably, what
On Fri, 2002-02-15 at 08:42, Othmar Pasteka wrote:
> you have a small typo in the arm specific section of rules.patch.
>
> you wrote
>
> ifeq ($(DEB_HOST_ARCH),arm)
> debian_patches += arm-const-double arm-tune arm-gnus-source
> endif
>
> should be more like
>
> arm-gnu-source because the pat
Package: gcc-3.0
Version: 1:3.0.4ds2-0pre020210
Severity: serious
Tags: patch
Hi,
you have a small typo in the arm specific section of rules.patch.
you wrote
ifeq ($(DEB_HOST_ARCH),arm)
debian_patches += arm-const-double arm-tune arm-gnus-source
endif
should be more like
arm-gnu-source beca
13 matches
Mail list logo
