On Mon, 2002-06-03 at 10:37, Brian May wrote:
> It looks OK, but all it does is copy the input to the output (aux was
> created by renaming ada.numerics.aux to aux):
On second thoughts, no it doesn't!
(Dislaimer: I don't really know what these opcodes stand for, so I am
guessing)
The code in que
On Mon, 2002-06-03 at 09:28, Samuel Tardieu wrote:
> No. You can check that your assembler has been properly included by
> looking at the resulting assembly code (gcc-3.1 -S -o - testbug2.adb).
Curious.
It looks OK, but all it does is copy the input to the output (aux was
created by renaming ada.
Thank you very much for your problem report.
It has the internal identification `ada/6911'.
The individual assigned to look at your
report is: unassigned.
>Category: ada
>Responsible:unassigned
>Synopsis: Sin and Cos returns bad result or exception
>Arrival-Date: Sun Jun 02 17:4
>Submitter-Id: net
>Originator:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Organization: The Debian Project
>Confidential: no
>Synopsis: Sin and Cos returns bad result or exception
>Severity: critical
>Priority: medium
>Category: ada
>Class: wrong-code
>Release: 3.1 (Debian) (Debia
>Submitter-Id: net
>Originator:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Organization: The Debian Project
>Confidential: no
>Synopsis: When I run this code it segfaults.
>Severity: serious
>Priority: medium
>Category: ada
>Class: wrong-code
>Release: 3.1 (Debian) (Debian unstable
Package: libstdc++2.10-dev
Version: 1:2.95.4-9
Severity: normal
File: /usr/include/g++-3/multimap.h
Tags: patch
AFAICS this problem is still around in the latest versions that come
with g++-3.1. The obsolete still exists, but the more
current equivalent does not.
For a quick fix, create a new
On 3/06, Brian May wrote:
| However, when I copied the routine to my code, it instantly stopped
| working at all (it turned the Asm call into a NOP), and I half suspected
| at the time that maybe I was doing something wrong (do I need to use a
| special compiler flag or something to get Asm code
On Sun, 2002-06-02 at 21:38, Samuel Tardieu wrote:
> The package System.Img_Real is used to convert floats to string. You
> can look at the expanded GNAT output using:
>
> % gcc-3.1 -gnatds testbug2.adb
Thanks for that tip. Will try it latter.
> Well, it looks like it is a i386 specific problem,
On Sun, Jun 02, 2002 at 11:45:46PM +0200, Martin v. Loewis wrote:
> "H . J . Lu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > > The patch, in itself, is correct. Applications that want to conform to
> > > the C++ ABI *must* use __cxa_atexit. It is not the default in g++
> > > since not all C libraries suppor
Jack Howarth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>Have you tried running the orginal test case from
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/1999-12n/msg00664.html
>
> with gcc 3.1 built without the g++-cxa-atexit.dpatch.
Yes, and it works fine for me with and without the patch.
> Both HJ Lu and Jaku
Jack Howarth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> As I said in my previous message, we are NOT losing __cxa_atexit.
> By dropping the current patch we are using the __cxa_atexit
> provided by glibc >= 2.2 instead of the one provided by gcc itself.
I understand that. The patch is still needed.
> The
"H . J . Lu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > The patch, in itself, is correct. Applications that want to conform to
> > the C++ ABI *must* use __cxa_atexit. It is not the default in g++
> > since not all C libraries support __cxa_atexit. However, GNU libc does
> > support this function, so Debian
Jack Howarth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>Here is another message from Jakub on the complete unnecessity
> of debian using the patch...
This is not relevant.
> It is not about being or not being accurate for gcc 3.1, it is about glibc
> 2001-02-26 or later having:
>
> /* This is defined by
Hello. Will you guys actually try building a gcc 3.1 without
the patch and testing a test case before you close this bug
again. Please reference the slew of quoted messages in the
debian-gcc mailing list from HJ Lu and Jakub Jelinek. The current
glibc (>= 2.2) provides __cxa_atexit and Linux and
Here is another message from Jakub on the complete unnecessity
of debian using the patch...
Jack
---
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Jun 2 01:15:44 2002
Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2002 07:15:44 +0200
From: Jakub J
Martin,
As I said in my previous message, we are NOT losing __cxa_atexit.
By dropping the current patch we are using the __cxa_atexit
provided by glibc >= 2.2 instead of the one provided by gcc itself.
That is what HJ and Jakub are trying to make debian understand.
The using gcc to provide __c
Martin,
Have you tried running the orginal test case from
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/1999-12n/msg00664.html
with gcc 3.1 built without the g++-cxa-atexit.dpatch.
Both HJ Lu and Jakub Jelinek have been trying to make
clear that since glibc 2.2 the -fuse-cxa-atexit is unnecessary
because
On Sun, Jun 02, 2002 at 10:04:52AM +0200, Martin v. Loewis wrote:
> Jack Howarth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > HJ Lu has requested that we regress out the g++-cxa-atexit.dpatch
> > patch.
>
> The patch, in itself, is correct. Applications that want to conform to
> the C++ ABI *must* use __
On Sat, Jun 01, 2002 at 10:03:55PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> 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/ma
> "Brian" == Brian May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Brian> raised CONSTRAINT_ERROR : s-imgrea.adb:236
Brian> (which is funny in a way, I don't see where this function is
Brian> getting called)
The package System.Img_Real is used to convert floats to string. You
can look at the expanded GNAT o
Do you have libc6-dev installed? gcc only recommends libc6-dev,
because there are situations where you don't need it.
Squirrel writes:
> Dear all,
> I wrote some lines of codes like the following to verify if my gcc
> could work.
>
> "int main()
> {
> int a,b;
> a=a+1;
> b
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> severity 148686 wishlist
Bug#148686: gcj-3.1 should provide /etc/alternatives/javac
Severity set to `wishlist'.
> reassign 148686 gcj
Bug#148686: gcj-3.1 should provide /etc/alternatives/javac
Bug reassigned from package `gcj-3.1' to `gcj'.
> merge 14
Jack Howarth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> HJ Lu has requested that we regress out the g++-cxa-atexit.dpatch
> patch.
The patch, in itself, is correct. Applications that want to conform to
the C++ ABI *must* use __cxa_atexit. It is not the default in g++
since not all C libraries support __cxa
Jack Howarth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In that case it also passes the test case properly. It seems to me
> that if the only reason we included the g++-cxa-atexit.dpatch
> was to satisfy the known problem...
>
> Global destructors are not run in the correct order.
>
>
> Global destructors sh
Brian May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What is the upstream address?
Please read http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs.html . Submitting bugs via GNATS
(mind the "S" ;-) is the preferred method.
--
Florian Weimer[EMAIL PROTECTED]
University of Stuttgart http://CERT.Uni-Stuttgar
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> forwarded 123468 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#123468: gcc: asserts with side effects
Noted your statement that Bug has been forwarded to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> retitle 123468 [PR c/6904] warn about asserts with side effects
Bug#123468: gcc: asserts with side eff
Brian May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, 2002-06-01 at 18:49, Matthias Klose wrote:
>> From gcc.gnu.org: "please note that the integration of the Ada front
>> end is still work in progress."
>
> Ok. I thought I heard rumors of something like this.
No, we told you this on debian-devel. An
Synopsis: stdcall function attribute doesn't work any longer
State-Changed-From-To: open->closed
State-Changed-By: rth
State-Changed-When: Sun Jun 2 00:09:14 2002
State-Changed-Why:
Please re-read
http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-3.1/gcc/Attribute-Syntax.html#Attribute%20Syntax
http://gcc.
Synopsis: GCC attribute syntax
State-Changed-From-To: open->closed
State-Changed-By: rth
State-Changed-When: Sun Jun 2 00:13:37 2002
State-Changed-Why:
Please re-read
http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-3.1/gcc/Attribute-Syntax.html#Attribute%20Syntax
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.p
Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 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?
No, that's a bug
On Sat, 2002-06-01 at 18:49, Matthias Klose wrote:
> From gcc.gnu.org: "please note that the integration of the Ada front
> end is still work in progress."
Ok. I thought I heard rumors of something like this.
> However, the gcc package "inherited" the gnat package and we currently
> don't have a
31 matches
Mail list logo
