Package: gcc-3.2
Version: 1:3.2.2ds3-0pre3
Severity: serious
This version fails to build on the ia64 autobuilder as shown below.
Bdale
| Automatic build of gcc-3.2_1:3.2.2ds3-0pre3 on caballero by sbuild/ia64 1.169
| Build started at 20021231-1113
[...]
| mkdir stamps
| mkdir: cannot create
This seems to be a problem with the autobuilder. Look at the beginning
of the log. the unpacked sources have future timestamps.
tar: gcc-20021231/INSTALL: time stamp 2002-12-31 12:52:51 is 5700 s in the
future
tar: gcc-20021231/boehm-gc/Mac_files: time stamp 2002-12-31 12:52:51 is 5700 s
in the
Your message dated Wed, 01 Jan 2003 10:11:29 -0700
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#174906: gcc-3.2_1:3.2.2ds3-0pre3(unstable/ia64): FTBFS:
source dir exists
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt
This build includes a logwatcher in debian/rules2 in the check
target. It prints out a line, if the testsuite is still running, but
no messages are written to stdout (due to no test cases failing). The
process is started in the background, and after the testsuite
finishes, it is killed ... should
On Wed, Jan 01, 2003 at 07:29:13PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
This build includes a logwatcher in debian/rules2 in the check
target. It prints out a line, if the testsuite is still running, but
no messages are written to stdout (due to no test cases failing). The
process is started in the
Your message dated Thu, 2 Jan 2003 01:54:53 +0100
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line no feedback for gcc-report, closing
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 Thu, 2 Jan 2003 02:06:00 +0100
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line gcc report closed upstream
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
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
retitle 12253 [PR c/6904, updated in 3.1/3.2] GCC attribute syntax
Bug#12253: [PR c/6904] GCC attribute syntax
Changed Bug title.
tags 12253 + fixed
Bug#12253: [PR c/6904, updated in 3.1/3.2] GCC attribute syntax
There were no tags set.
Bug#43119: [PR
retitle 12253 [PR c/6904, updated in 3.1/3.2] GCC attribute syntax
tags 12253 + fixed
reassign 12253 gcc-2.95
thanks
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
reassign 168235 binutils
Bug#168235: gcc doesn't link with profiled libc when -pg is used
Bug reassigned from package `gcc-2.95' to `binutils'.
tags 168235 unreproducible
Bug#168235: gcc doesn't link with profiled libc when -pg is used
There were no
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
retitle 42946 [fixed in 3.4] Parse errors for simple code
Bug#42946: [Known bug] Parse errors for simple code
Changed Bug title.
retitle 55298 [PR c/3481, partly fixed in 3.2] function attributes should
apply to function pointers too
Bug#55298: [PR
Your message dated Thu, 2 Jan 2003 02:33:58 +0100
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line bug report closed upstream as not a bug
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 Thu, 2 Jan 2003 03:31:37 +0100
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Unable to reproduce with current gcc-2.95
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
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
tags 135727 + helpneeded
Unknown tag/s: helpneeded.
Recognized are: patch wontfix moreinfo unreproducible fixed potato woody sid
help security upstream pending sarge experimental d-i.
Bug#135727: buffer overflow (?) in writeln
There were no tags set.
www.net.cn)
3
12002 it
2200270 150
3,
4
53
6100
7,3
8
50
9,
http://www.net.cn/static/newscenter/news_1121.asp
11
Please could you
- give an example for a source file, where this happens.
- try to reproduce this behaviour with gcc-3.2.
Your message dated Thu, 2 Jan 2003 04:18:36 +0100
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line gcc-snapshot builds on hppa again
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
On Thu, Jan 02, 2003 at 02:29:51AM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
Herbert, please could you send a followup (using gcc-3.2 and
gcc-snapshot)?
The assembly code generated by gcc-3.2 is the same as what you got
in [EMAIL PROTECTED] which is part of
the bug log.
--
Debian GNU/Linux 3.0 is out! (
On Wed, 2003-01-01 at 18:10, Matthias Klose wrote:
The location http://people.debian.org/~karlheg/Usenix88-lexic.pdf
isn't valid anymore.
You may find it at:
http://www.hegbloom.net/~karlheg/Usenix88-lexic.pdf
Please try and contact the author, get permission if possible, then
include this
On Thu, Jan 02, 2003 at 02:58:54AM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
Starting with gcc-3.x, gcc accepts the option -std=c99. using this
option LLONG_MAX is defined. Please could someone verify, that
LLONG_MAX is required by C99, but not LONG_LONG_MAX.
According to my copy of the standard, this is
20 matches
Mail list logo
