Package: gnat-3.1
Version: 1:3.1-2
Followup-For: Bug #148529
The following code is the same as before, except with 2 extra lines:
--- CUT ---
with Ada.Text_IO;
use Ada.Text_IO;
with Ada.Numerics;
use Ada.Numerics;
with Ada.Numerics.Generic_Elementary_Functions;
procedure TestBug2 is
Package: gij-3.1
Version: 1:3.1-2
Severity: normal
gij-3.1 should provide java-runtime2. I found that I cant install
libbtools-java because no package provides java-runtime2 except
j2sdk1.3.
-- System Information
Debian Release: 3.0
Architecture: i386
Kernel: Linux asterix 2.4.18-k7 #1 Sun Apr
Brian May writes:
Is the quality of the Gnat compiler likely to improve any time in the
not-too-distant future, or should I be concentrating my efforts for the
moment at least on other languages?
From gcc.gnu.org: please note that the integration of the Ada front
end is still work in progress.
[CCing [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-3.1/changes.html I read:
- java.security has been merged with GNU Classpath. The new package is
now JDK 1.2 compliant, and much more complete.
So java.security is JDK 1.2 compliant, but not libgcj-3.1?
Michael Koch writes:
Package: gij-3.1
Synopsis: ICE from #include inside switch(){} inside template function
State-Changed-From-To: open-analyzed
State-Changed-By: lerdsuwa
State-Changed-When: Sat Jun 1 08:54:48 2002
State-Changed-Why:
Confirmed. ICE due to tsubst_expr getting a FILE_STMT node.
Accepted:
cpp-3.1_3.1.1-0pre1_hppa.deb
to pool/main/g/gcc-3.1/cpp-3.1_3.1.1-0pre1_hppa.deb
fastjar_3.1.1-0pre1_hppa.deb
to pool/main/g/gcc-3.1/fastjar_3.1.1-0pre1_hppa.deb
fixincludes_3.1.1-0pre1_hppa.deb
to pool/main/g/gcc-3.1/fixincludes_3.1.1-0pre1_hppa.deb
g++-3.1_3.1.1-0pre1_hppa.deb
Title: An I n f o r m a t i o n
An I n f o r m a t i o
n
in the age of
information
FINDING QUICKER SOLUTIONS AND SOLVING
PROBLEMS QUICKER
When you are fully booked and
overloaded
with work there are still the possibility to use theancient mental
Accepted:
cpp-3.1-doc_3.1.1-0pre1_all.deb
to pool/main/g/gcc-3.1/cpp-3.1-doc_3.1.1-0pre1_all.deb
cpp-3.1_3.1.1-0pre1_i386.deb
to pool/main/g/gcc-3.1/cpp-3.1_3.1.1-0pre1_i386.deb
fastjar_3.1.1-0pre1_i386.deb
to pool/main/g/gcc-3.1/fastjar_3.1.1-0pre1_i386.deb
fixincludes_3.1.1-0pre1_i386.deb
Your message dated Sat, 01 Jun 2002 14:02:27 -0400
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#148181: fixed in gcc-3.1 1:3.1.1ds0-0pre1
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
Your message dated Sat, 01 Jun 2002 14:02:27 -0400
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#148682: fixed in gcc-3.1 1:3.1.1ds0-0pre1
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
Your message dated Sat, 01 Jun 2002 14:02:27 -0400
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#148662: fixed in gcc-3.1 1:3.1.1ds0-0pre1
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
Submitter-Id: net
Originator:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Organization: The Debian Project
Confidential: no
Synopsis:
Severity: non-critical
Priority: low
Category: c
Class: accepts-illegal
Release: 3.1 (Debian) (Debian unstable)
Environment:
System: Debian
Thank you very much for your problem report.
It has the internal identification `c/6897'.
The individual assigned to look at your
report is: unassigned.
Category: c
Responsible:unassigned
Synopsis: Code produced with -fPIC reserves EBX, but compiles bad
__asm__ anyway
Julian Gilbey writes:
Package: g++
Version: sid
In my diversions file, I have just come across the following:
/usr/bin/c++filt
/usr/bin/c++filt.binutils
g++
/usr/man/man1/c++filt.1.gz
/usr/man/man1/c++filt.binutils.1.gz
g++
So ls -l /usr/bin/c++filt* gives the following:
See http://bugs.debian.org/45479
Please could you recheck this report with gcc-3.1 (and/or) gcc-3.0?
Not sure if Mike is still present, therefore CCing debian-alpha.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
tags 80468 + fixed
Bug#80468: [fixed in gobjc-3.1] @protocol forward definitions do not work
Tags added: fixed
thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian
Thank you very much for your problem report.
It has the internal identification `c/6898'.
The individual assigned to look at your
report is: unassigned.
Category: c
Responsible:unassigned
Synopsis: gcc produces incorrect minimization code
Arrival-Date: Sat Jun 01 13:56:00 PDT
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
forwarded 40189 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#40189: egcc: egcc produces incorrect minimization code
Forwarded-to-address changed from gcc@gcc.gnu.org to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
retitle 40189 [PR c/6889] gcc produces incorrect minimization code
Bug#40189: egcc:
Submitter-Id: net
Originator:Ghanashyam Date [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Organization: The Debian Project
Confidential: no
Synopsis:
Severity: non-critical
Priority: low
Category: c
Class: wrong-code
Release: 3.1 (Debian) (Debian unstable)
Environment:
System:
Thank you very much for your problem report.
It has the internal identification `c/6900'.
The individual assigned to look at your
report is: unassigned.
Category: c
Responsible:unassigned
Synopsis: Floating point behaviour of gcc on pentium
Arrival-Date: Sat Jun 01 14:06:00 PDT
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
forwarded 36876 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#36876: Erratic behaviour of gcc/egcc on pentium
Forwarded-to-address changed from [EMAIL PROTECTED] to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
retitle 36876 [PR c/6900] Floating point behaviour of gcc on pentium
Bug#36876: Erratic
Submitter-Id: net
Originator:Herbert Xu [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Organization: The Debian Project
Confidential: no
Synopsis:
Severity: non-critical
Priority: low
Category: optimization
Class: sw-bug
Release: 3.1 (Debian) (Debian unstable)
Environment:
System:
Submitter-Id: net
Originator:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Organization: The Debian Project
Confidential: no
Synopsis:
Severity: non-critical
Priority: low
Category: c
Class: sw-bug
Release: 3.1 (Debian) (Debian unstable)
Environment:
System: Debian GNU/Linux
Thank you very much for your problem report.
It has the internal identification `optimization/6901'.
The individual assigned to look at your
report is: unassigned.
Category: optimization
Responsible:unassigned
Synopsis: optimiser could be improved
Arrival-Date: Sat Jun 01
Submitter-Id: net
Originator:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Organization: The Debian Project
Confidential: no
Synopsis:
Severity: non-critical
Priority: low
Category: c++
Class: change-request
Release: 3.1 (Debian) (Debian unstable)
Environment:
System: Debian
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
forwarded 67206 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#67206: gcc: optimiser could be improved
Forwarded-to-address changed from gcc@gcc.gnu.org to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
retitle 67206 [PR optimization/6901] optimiser could be improved
Bug#67206: gcc: optimiser could be
Submitter-Id: net
Originator:Ian Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Organization: The Debian Project
Confidential: no
Synopsis:
Severity: non-critical
Priority: low
Category: c
Class: change-request
Release: 3.1 (Debian) (Debian unstable)
Environment:
System:
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
forwarded 43119 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#43119: stdcall function attribute doesn't work any longer
Bug#12253: GCC has undocumented syntax for functions definitions with attributes
Forwarded-to-address changed from gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Submitter-Id: net
Originator:Charles Briscoe-Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Organization: The Debian Project
Confidential: no
Synopsis:
Severity: non-critical
Priority: low
Category: other
Class: change-request
Release: 3.1 (Debian) (Debian unstable)
Thank you very much for your problem report.
It has the internal identification `c/6904'.
The individual assigned to look at your
report is: unassigned.
Category: c
Responsible:unassigned
Synopsis: GCC attribute syntax
Arrival-Date: Sat Jun 01 15:46:01 PDT 2002
--
To
Thank you very much for your problem report.
It has the internal identification `c++/6905'.
The individual assigned to look at your
report is: unassigned.
Category: c++
Responsible:unassigned
Synopsis: Suggested g++ warning: changed semantics of conditional
expressions
Thank you very much for your problem report.
It has the internal identification `other/6903'.
The individual assigned to look at your
report is: unassigned.
Category: other
Responsible:unassigned
Synopsis: gcc could give better error message when /tmp gets full
Arrival-Date:
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
reassign 119633 avifile
Bug#119633: gcc aborts with exception while using -march=i686 flag
Bug reassigned from package `gcc' to `avifile'.
thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Debian bug tracking system
reassign 119633 avifile
thanks
Zdenek, I'm reassigning this to avifile, please make sure that avifile
and all C++ libraries that avifile depends on, are compiled with the
same C++ compiler.
Zdenek Kabelac writes:
Package: gcc
Version: 2:2.95.4-8
Severity: normal
Hi
I've just discovered
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
forwarded 33975 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#33975: Suggested g++ warning: changed semantics of conditional expressions
Forwarded-to-address changed from [EMAIL PROTECTED] to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
retitle 33975 [PR c++/6905] Suggested g++ warning: changed
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
forwarded 12253 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#12253: GCC has undocumented syntax for functions definitions with attributes
Bug#43119: [PR c/6902] stdcall function attribute doesn't work any longer
Forwarded-to-address changed from [EMAIL PROTECTED] to [EMAIL
As Chris and Martin have pointed out, the behaviour should not be
changed. To get the warning, use `-std=c89' or `-std=c99'. But I'm
unsure, why compiling with -fno-dollars-in-identifiers doesn't print a
warning. Is this correct?
Matthias
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Your message dated Sun, 2 Jun 2002 01:05:18 +0200 (MEST)
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line don't package egcs
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
Your message dated Sun, 2 Jun 2002 01:05:18 +0200 (MEST)
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line don't package egcs
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
Submitter-Id: net
Originator:Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Organization: The Debian Project
Confidential: no
Synopsis:
Severity: non-critical
Priority: low
Category: c
Class: change-request
Release: 3.1 (Debian) (Debian unstable)
Environment:
Your message dated Sun, 2 Jun 2002 01:21:51 +0200
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line clsoing gcc report
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
Thank you very much for your problem report.
It has the internal identification `c/6906'.
The individual assigned to look at your
report is: unassigned.
Category: c
Responsible:unassigned
Synopsis: warn about asserts with side effects
Arrival-Date: Sat Jun 01 16:36:00 PDT 2002
I went back and looked at the origin of this g++-cxa-atexit.dpatch
patch...
http://lists.debian.org/debian-gcc/2001/debian-gcc-200106/msg00162.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/1999-12n/msg00664.html
and decided to try the test case (it needs a correction...test.C is
missing a
#include
HJ Lu has requested that we regress out the g++-cxa-atexit.dpatch
patch. He says that he doesn't intend to fix binutils to resolve
the breakage because all glibc 2.2 have been providing a completely
usable __cxa_atexit via atexit making the use of -fuse-cxa-atexit
unncessary. That is also why I
44 matches
Mail list logo
