>Submitter-Id: net
>Originator:Randolph Chung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Organization: Debian
>Confidential: no
>Synopsis: [3.3 regression] [parisc-linux] ICE when building lesstif1 at
>-O1/O2
>Severity: serious
>Priority: medium
>Category: optimization
>Class: ice-on
See also bug 185242, which is nearly identical but refers to
libstdc++5-dev.
In the submission of this bug, I made an error.
$ ./ropetest-320
Aborted
should instead read
$ ./ropetest-300
Segmentation Fault
My apologies. That's what I get for submitting two nearly-identical bug
reports simultaneously.
Ian Turner
See also bug 185243, which is the same bug as applied to listdc++3.
Package: libstdc++5-dev
Version: 1:3.2.3-0pre5
Severity: important
Consider the following program:
--- BEGIN ropetest.c ---
#include
using namespace std;
using namespace __gnu_cxx;
unsigned int rand(unsigned int max) {
unsigned int rval = (unsigned int)(((double)max)*rand()/(RAND_MAX));
if
Package: libstdc++3-dev
Version: 1:3.0.4-7
Severity: important
Consider the following program:
--- BEGIN ropetest.c ---
#include
using namespace std;
using namespace __gnu_cxx;
unsigned int rand(unsigned int max) {
unsigned int rval = (unsigned int)(((double)max)*rand()/(RAND_MAX));
if (rv
Your message dated Mon, 17 Mar 2003 18:47:50 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#183990: fixed in gcc-2.95 2.95.4.ds14-17
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 i
Accepted:
chill-2.95_2.95.4-17_i386.deb
to pool/main/g/gcc-2.95/chill-2.95_2.95.4-17_i386.deb
cpp-2.95-doc_2.95.4-17_all.deb
to pool/main/g/gcc-2.95/cpp-2.95-doc_2.95.4-17_all.deb
cpp-2.95_2.95.4-17_i386.deb
to pool/main/g/gcc-2.95/cpp-2.95_2.95.4-17_i386.deb
g++-2.95_2.95.4-17_i386.deb
to
There are disparities between your recently accepted upload and the
override file for the following file(s):
libstdc++2.10-glibc2.2_2.95.4-17_i386.deb: package says priority is optional,
override says required.
Either the package or the override file is incorrect. If you think
the override is c
Your message dated Mon, 17 Mar 2003 18:17:12 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#138038: fixed in gcc-defaults 1.4
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 y
Your message dated Mon, 17 Mar 2003 18:17:12 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#181495: fixed in gcc-defaults 1.4
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 y
Accepted:
chill_2.95.4-19_i386.deb
to pool/main/g/gcc-defaults/chill_2.95.4-19_i386.deb
cpp_3.2.3-0_i386.deb
to pool/main/g/gcc-defaults/cpp_3.2.3-0_i386.deb
g++_3.2.3-0_i386.deb
to pool/main/g/gcc-defaults/g++_3.2.3-0_i386.deb
g77_3.2.3-0_i386.deb
to pool/main/g/gcc-defaults/g77_3.2.3-0_i
LAST_UPDATED: Sun Mar 16 10:12:05 UTC 2003
Native configuration is i386-pc-linux-gnu
=== g++ tests ===
Running target unix
XPASS: g++.other/init5.C Execution test
=== g++ Summary ===
# of expected passes7372
# of unexpected successes 1
# of e
Your message dated Mon, 17 Mar 2003 16:37:24 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#177076: fixed in gcc-3.2 1:3.2.3ds5-0pre6
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 Mon, 17 Mar 2003 16:37:23 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#168310: fixed in gcc-3.2 1:3.2.3ds5-0pre6
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 Mon, 17 Mar 2003 16:37:23 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#167014: fixed in gcc-3.2 1:3.2.3ds5-0pre6
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 Mon, 17 Mar 2003 16:37:24 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#184684: fixed in gcc-3.2 1:3.2.3ds5-0pre6
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 Mon, 17 Mar 2003 16:37:24 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#178144: fixed in gcc-3.2 1:3.2.3ds5-0pre6
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 Mon, 17 Mar 2003 16:37:24 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#184650: fixed in gcc-3.2 1:3.2.3ds5-0pre6
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
Accepted:
cpp-3.2-doc_3.2.3-0pre6_all.deb
to pool/main/g/gcc-3.2/cpp-3.2-doc_3.2.3-0pre6_all.deb
cpp-3.2_3.2.3-0pre6_i386.deb
to pool/main/g/gcc-3.2/cpp-3.2_3.2.3-0pre6_i386.deb
fastjar_3.2.3-0pre6_i386.deb
to pool/main/g/gcc-3.2/fastjar_3.2.3-0pre6_i386.deb
fixincludes_3.2.3-0pre6_i386.deb
Accepted:
cpp-3.2_3.2.3-0pre6_m68k.deb
to pool/main/g/gcc-3.2/cpp-3.2_3.2.3-0pre6_m68k.deb
fastjar_3.2.3-0pre6_m68k.deb
to pool/main/g/gcc-3.2/fastjar_3.2.3-0pre6_m68k.deb
fixincludes_3.2.3-0pre6_m68k.deb
to pool/main/g/gcc-3.2/fixincludes_3.2.3-0pre6_m68k.deb
g++-3.2_3.2.3-0pre6_m68k.deb
On Mon, 2003-03-17 at 18:32, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
>
> Huh? Is this your own installation of GCC 3.2? Our
> i386-linux/bits/atomicity.h contains the atomic operations, not a
> single-threaded version.
No, it is not, it is the standard (testing) debian package. I'm not an
i386 asm expert but t
On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 03:46:55PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> Package: libc6
> Version: 2.3.1-14
> Severity: normal
>
> In sysdeps/hppa/elf/initfini.c we have this:
> /* If we use the standard C version, the linkage table pointer won't
>be properly preserved due to the splitting up of fun
On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 03:55:32PM +0100, Bo Lorentsen wrote:
> Hi ...
>
> I have been spending some time, trying to make the g++ 3.2 work in a MT
> environment, and it works out quite nicely, but ... I have some problems
> while using strings (other things too I belive) on a SMP machine.
>
> Now
Package: gcc-3.2
Version: 1:3.2.3-0pre5
Severity: normal
On powerpc, for whatever reason, gcc includes a whole bunch of
functions in generated objects like this (small snippet):
1900 gDF .text 003c Base_restgpr_18
19d8 gDF .text 0014 Base_restgpr_31_x
00
Hi ...
I have been spending some time, trying to make the g++ 3.2 work in a MT
environment, and it works out quite nicely, but ... I have some problems
while using strings (other things too I belive) on a SMP machine.
Now this all ends up in the "i386-linux/bits/atomicity.h" file, that
"only" con
Hello!!
Take a look for this sensationel system
Your personal Chance!
http://www.cyberwincity.com/KISS/member/kiss.asp?id=26224
Hello!!
Take a look for this sensationel system
Your personal Chance!
http://www.cyberwincity.com/KISS/member/kiss.asp?id=26224
28 matches
Mail list logo
