Bug#130415: marked as done ([fixed in 3.0] g77 crashes)

Your message dated Sat, 17 May 2003 17:32:42 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#130415: fixed in gcc-3.3 1:3.3ds9-1 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

Bug#72933: marked as done ([fixed upstream 001117] Hash bug in gcc 2.95.2)

Your message dated Sat, 17 May 2003 17:32:55 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#72933: fixed in gcc-3.3 1:3.3ds9-1 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

Bug#42989: marked as done ([fixed gcc-2.95.1: g++ 'internal compiler error' messages)

Your message dated Sat, 17 May 2003 17:32:51 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#42989: fixed in gcc-3.3 1:3.3ds9-1 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

Bug#190066: marked as done (gcc-3.3: missing support for x86-64)

Your message dated Sat, 17 May 2003 17:32:50 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#190066: fixed in gcc-3.3 1:3.3ds9-1 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

Bug#120333: marked as done ([fixed in g++-3.0] [mips] update-menus gets Bus Error)

Your message dated Sat, 17 May 2003 17:32:42 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#105569: fixed in gcc-3.3 1:3.3ds9-1 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

Bug#114029: marked as done (gcc-2.95-doc: misleading documentation for -malign-{jump,loop,function}s on sparc)

Your message dated Sat, 17 May 2003 17:32:42 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#114029: fixed in gcc-3.3 1:3.3ds9-1 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

Bug#12253: marked as done ([PR c/6904, updated in 3.1/3.2] GCC attribute syntax)

Your message dated Sat, 17 May 2003 17:32:42 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#12253: fixed in gcc-3.3 1:3.3ds9-1 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

Bug#151671: marked as done ([fixed in 3.x] g++ -pedantic-errors -D_GNU_SOURCE cannot #include )

Your message dated Sat, 17 May 2003 17:32:44 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#151671: fixed in gcc-3.3 1:3.3ds9-1 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

Bug#118781: marked as done ([fixed in g++-3.0] internal compiler error using nested templates)

Your message dated Sat, 17 May 2003 17:32:42 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#118781: fixed in gcc-3.3 1:3.3ds9-1 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

Bug#68963: marked as done ([fixed upstream] libstdc++2.10 has no method at() in stl_=)

Your message dated Sat, 17 May 2003 17:32:55 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#68963: fixed in gcc-3.3 1:3.3ds9-1 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

Bug#43119: marked as done ([PR c/6902] stdcall function attribute doesn't work any longer)

Your message dated Sat, 17 May 2003 17:32:42 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#12253: fixed in gcc-3.3 1:3.3ds9-1 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

Bug#79225: marked as done ([fixed in 3.2] g++ handles &(void *)foo bizzarely)

Your message dated Sat, 17 May 2003 17:32:55 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#79225: fixed in gcc-3.3 1:3.3ds9-1 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

Bug#127489: marked as done ([fixed in g++-3.0] Another g++ Internal Compiler Error with templates)

Your message dated Sat, 17 May 2003 17:32:42 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#127489: fixed in gcc-3.3 1:3.3ds9-1 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

Bug#131890: marked as done ([fixed in gcc-3.0/3.1] Internal compiler error at compiling sample code)

Your message dated Sat, 17 May 2003 17:32:43 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#131890: fixed in gcc-3.3 1:3.3ds9-1 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

Bug#131454: marked as done ([fixed in 3.0] gcc -O2 produces wrong code on PPC (gnuchess example))

Your message dated Sat, 17 May 2003 17:32:43 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#131454: fixed in gcc-3.3 1:3.3ds9-1 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

Bug#128367: marked as done ([fixed in g++-3.0] aspell: trigger internal compiler error on mipsel)

Your message dated Sat, 17 May 2003 17:32:42 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#128367: fixed in gcc-3.3 1:3.3ds9-1 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

Bug#136659: marked as done ([PR target/9080] optimisation on sparc leads to unalligned access in memcpy)

Your message dated Sat, 17 May 2003 17:32:43 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#136659: fixed in gcc-3.3 1:3.3ds9-1 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

Bug#142844: marked as done ([fixed in gcc-3.0 and gcc-3.1] [alpha] dead code removal in switch() broken)

Your message dated Sat, 17 May 2003 17:32:44 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#142844: fixed in gcc-3.3 1:3.3ds9-1 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

Bug#134558: marked as done ([alpha, fixed in 3.0] libc6.1: header coflicts on alpha with gcc-2.95.4)

Your message dated Sat, 17 May 2003 17:32:43 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#134558: fixed in gcc-3.3 1:3.3ds9-1 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

Bug#151357: marked as done ([fixed in 3.3/snapshot] gcc-3.x fails to compile virtual inheritance with variable number of argument methode)

Your message dated Sat, 17 May 2003 17:32:44 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#151357: fixed in gcc-3.3 1:3.3ds9-1 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

Bug#146006: marked as done ([fixed in gcc-3.0] optimization (-O2) broken on m68k)

Your message dated Sat, 17 May 2003 17:32:44 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#146006: fixed in gcc-3.3 1:3.3ds9-1 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

Bug#97603: marked as done ([alpha, fixed in 3.0] can't compile with define gnu_source on alpha with stdio and curses)

Your message dated Sat, 17 May 2003 17:32:43 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#134558: fixed in gcc-3.3 1:3.3ds9-1 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

Bug#140427: marked as done ([fixed in g++-3.1] Internal compiler error)

Your message dated Sat, 17 May 2003 17:32:43 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#140427: fixed in gcc-3.3 1:3.3ds9-1 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

Bug#154767: marked as done ([fixed in 3.x] cpp-2.95 fails to parse macros with varargs correctly)

Your message dated Sat, 17 May 2003 17:32:45 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#154767: fixed in gcc-3.3 1:3.3ds9-1 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

Bug#141797: marked as done ([fixed in g++-3.0/3.1] Internal compiler error)

Your message dated Sat, 17 May 2003 17:32:43 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#141797: fixed in gcc-3.3 1:3.3ds9-1 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

Bug#144602: marked as done ([fixed with g77-3.0] lapack-dev: cannot link on alpha)

Your message dated Sat, 17 May 2003 17:32:44 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#144602: fixed in gcc-3.3 1:3.3ds9-1 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

Bug#165829: marked as done ([fixed in gcc-3.3] C++ error on virtual function which uses ...)

Your message dated Sat, 17 May 2003 17:32:46 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#165829: fixed in gcc-3.3 1:3.3ds9-1 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

Bug#180937: marked as done ([PR c++/9789] [3.2 ICE regression, fixed in 3.3] Error reporting routines re-entered)

Your message dated Sat, 17 May 2003 17:32:48 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#180937: fixed in gcc-3.3 1:3.3ds9-1 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

Bug#151675: marked as done ([fixed in gcc-3.x] gcc: infinite loop with -O on arm)

Your message dated Sat, 17 May 2003 17:32:45 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#151675: fixed in gcc-3.3 1:3.3ds9-1 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

Bug#152709: marked as done ([fixed in gcc-3.x] __VA_ARGS__ stringification crashes preprocessor if __VA_ARGS__ is empty)

Your message dated Sat, 17 May 2003 17:32:45 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#152709: fixed in gcc-3.3 1:3.3ds9-1 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

Bug#157292: marked as done ([fixed in g++-3.x] template function default arguments are not handled)

Your message dated Sat, 17 May 2003 17:32:45 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#157292: fixed in gcc-3.3 1:3.3ds9-1 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

Bug#90363: marked as done ([fixed in g77-3.0] f77 miscompiles PIC on arm)

Your message dated Sat, 17 May 2003 17:32:56 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#90363: fixed in gcc-3.3 1:3.3ds9-1 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

Bug#156450: marked as done ([fixed in 3.x] doesn't handle empty args in macro function if there is only one arg)

Your message dated Sat, 17 May 2003 17:32:45 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#156450: fixed in gcc-3.3 1:3.3ds9-1 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

Bug#85535: marked as done ([fixed in gcc-3.1, PR optimization/3508]: builtin memcmp() could be optimised)

Your message dated Sat, 17 May 2003 17:32:56 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#85535: fixed in gcc-3.3 1:3.3ds9-1 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

Bug#158704: marked as done ([fix in 3.2] gcc doesn't warn about unreachable code)

Your message dated Sat, 17 May 2003 17:32:45 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#158704: fixed in gcc-3.3 1:3.3ds9-1 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

Bug#172956: marked as done ([fixed in gcc-3.x] Sparc GCC issue with -mcpu=ultrasparc)

Your message dated Sat, 17 May 2003 17:32:47 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#172956: fixed in gcc-3.3 1:3.3ds9-1 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

Bug#162074: marked as done ([fix in 3.2] Warning when including stl.h)

Your message dated Sat, 17 May 2003 17:32:46 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#162074: fixed in gcc-3.3 1:3.3ds9-1 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

Bug#191407: marked as done (FTBFS: Pascal breaks on (at least) netbsd-i386)

Your message dated Sat, 17 May 2003 17:32:50 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#191407: fixed in gcc-3.3 1:3.3ds9-1 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

Bug#193689: gcc-3.3: GCC 3.3 uninstallable on i386

Package: gcc-3.3 Version: 1:3.3-1 Severity: normal The package libgcc1 depends of nonexistent lib64gcc1, so it is not installable. -- System Information: Debian Release: testing/unstable Architecture: i386 Kernel: Linux drizzt 2.4.20-ck4 #1 sáb mar 22 17:17:18 CET 2003 i686 Locale: [EMAIL PROTECT

Bug#80468: marked as done ([fixed in gobjc-3.1] @protocol forward definitions do not work)

Your message dated Sat, 17 May 2003 17:32:55 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#80468: fixed in gcc-3.3 1:3.3ds9-1 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

Bug#88260: marked as done ([fixed in g++-3.0] No warning for missing return in non-void member func)

Your message dated Sat, 17 May 2003 17:32:56 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#88260: fixed in gcc-3.3 1:3.3ds9-1 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

Bug#55967: marked as done ([fixed in 2.96 CVS 20000720] internal compiler error (testcase attached))

Your message dated Sat, 17 May 2003 17:32:53 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#55967: fixed in gcc-3.3 1:3.3ds9-1 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

Bug#20695: marked as done (regparm/profiling breakage (fixed with gcc-3.0))

Your message dated Sat, 17 May 2003 17:32:50 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#20695: fixed in gcc-3.3 1:3.3ds9-1 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

Bug#165110: marked as done ([fixed in gcc-3.x] undocumented option -pthread)

Your message dated Sat, 17 May 2003 17:32:46 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#165110: fixed in gcc-3.3 1:3.3ds9-1 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

Bug#65687: marked as done ([fixed upstream 001117] Internal compiler error)

Your message dated Sat, 17 May 2003 17:32:54 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#65687: fixed in gcc-3.3 1:3.3ds9-1 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

Bug#27878: marked as done ([new options in 20000109] automatic dependency dehairification request)

Your message dated Sat, 17 May 2003 17:32:50 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#27878: fixed in gcc-3.3 1:3.3ds9-1 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

Bug#53698: marked as done ([fixed upstream 001117] internal compiler error with templates)

Your message dated Sat, 17 May 2003 17:32:52 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#53698: fixed in gcc-3.3 1:3.3ds9-1 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

Bug#161615: marked as done ([fixed in 3.3] -print-file-name sometimes fails)

Your message dated Sat, 17 May 2003 17:32:45 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#161615: fixed in gcc-3.3 1:3.3ds9-1 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

Bug#188527: marked as done ([fixed in 3.3] [PR 10427] [3.2/3.3/3.4 regression] Stack corruption with variable-length automatic arrays and virtual destructors)

Your message dated Sat, 17 May 2003 17:32:49 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#188527: fixed in gcc-3.3 1:3.3ds9-1 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

Bug#47981: marked as done ([fixed in upstream 20000518] [alpha] Mutt segv on viewing list of attachments)

Your message dated Sat, 17 May 2003 17:32:52 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#47981: fixed in gcc-3.3 1:3.3ds9-1 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

Bug#178909: marked as done ([PR 10114, 3.2/3.3/3.4 sparc regression] ICE when optimizing (mem_loc_descriptor, at dwarf2out.c:7903))

Your message dated Sat, 17 May 2003 17:32:47 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#178909: fixed in gcc-3.3 1:3.3ds9-1 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

Bug#167439: marked as done ([fixed in gcc-3.x] stdbool.h broken)

Your message dated Sat, 17 May 2003 17:32:46 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#167439: fixed in gcc-3.3 1:3.3ds9-1 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

Bug#151196: marked as done ([fixed in gcc-3.x] gcc-2.95.4-9 ICE in kernel (matroxfb) code)

Your message dated Sat, 17 May 2003 17:32:44 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#151196: fixed in gcc-3.3 1:3.3ds9-1 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

Bug#186447: marked as done (gcc-3.2: [3.2 regression] [HPPA] Internal compiler error in insn_default_length, at insn-attrtab.c:1203)

Your message dated Sat, 17 May 2003 17:32:49 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#186447: fixed in gcc-3.3 1:3.3ds9-1 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

Bug#118670: marked as done ([not a bug/fixed in libgcc1] libgcc.a symbols end up exported by shared libraries)

Your message dated Sat, 17 May 2003 17:32:42 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#118670: fixed in gcc-3.3 1:3.3ds9-1 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

Bug#152315: marked as done ([fixed in g++-3.x] g++-2.95-3/4 template and virtual inheritance bug)

Your message dated Sat, 17 May 2003 17:32:45 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#152315: fixed in gcc-3.3 1:3.3ds9-1 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

Bug#105569: marked as done ([fixed in g++-3.0] [mips] g++ exception catching does not work...)

Your message dated Sat, 17 May 2003 17:32:42 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#105569: fixed in gcc-3.3 1:3.3ds9-1 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

Bug#136630: marked as done ([fixed in gcc-3.0/3.1] gcc chokes (internal error) on invalid extended asm)

Your message dated Sat, 17 May 2003 17:32:43 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#136630: fixed in gcc-3.3 1:3.3ds9-1 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

Bug#105309: marked as done ([fixed in 3.3/HEAD: PR optimization/3995] i386 optimisation: joining tests)

Your message dated Sat, 17 May 2003 17:32:41 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#105309: fixed in gcc-3.3 1:3.3ds9-1 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

Bug#137382: marked as done ([fixed in gcc-3.0/3.1] -Q option to gcc appears twice in the documentation)

Your message dated Sat, 17 May 2003 17:32:43 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#137382: fixed in gcc-3.3 1:3.3ds9-1 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

Bug#148603: marked as done ([fixed in g++-3.1] crash when template declared after use)

Your message dated Sat, 17 May 2003 17:32:44 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#148603: fixed in gcc-3.3 1:3.3ds9-1 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

Bug#165992: marked as done ([docs fixed in 3.2] __builtin_return_address doesn't work properly)

Your message dated Sat, 17 May 2003 17:32:46 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#165992: fixed in gcc-3.3 1:3.3ds9-1 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

Bug#42662: marked as done ([fixed in 2.96 CVS 20000720] templated friend)

Your message dated Sat, 17 May 2003 17:32:51 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#42662: fixed in gcc-3.3 1:3.3ds9-1 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

Bug#186299: marked as done ([fixed in 3.3] [PR 10315] [powerpc] ICE: in extract_insn, at recog.c:2175 building php3)

Your message dated Sat, 17 May 2003 17:32:49 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#186299: fixed in gcc-3.3 1:3.3ds9-1 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

Bug#184753: marked as done ([PR 10084] [3.2/3.3 regression]: alpha ICE while building ddd/kseg)

Your message dated Sat, 17 May 2003 17:32:48 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#184753: fixed in gcc-3.3 1:3.3ds9-1 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

Bug#35477: marked as done ([fixed upstream 001117] C++ class mishandling)

Your message dated Sat, 17 May 2003 17:32:50 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#34876: fixed in gcc-3.3 1:3.3ds9-1 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

Bug#184862: marked as done ([fixed in 3.3] static fpos_t gives internal compiler error)

Your message dated Sat, 17 May 2003 17:32:49 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#184862: fixed in gcc-3.3 1:3.3ds9-1 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

Bug#168310: marked as done ([fixed in 3.3] [PR c++/8598] xmmintrin.h broken for c++)

Your message dated Sat, 17 May 2003 17:32:46 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#168310: fixed in gcc-3.3 1:3.3ds9-1 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

Bug#168346: marked as done ([fixed in 3.x] C99 symbols in limits.h not defined)

Your message dated Sat, 17 May 2003 17:32:46 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#168346: fixed in gcc-3.3 1:3.3ds9-1 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

Bug#21255: marked as done ([fixed in 3.0] g++ has some troubles with nested templates)

Your message dated Sat, 17 May 2003 17:32:50 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#21255: fixed in gcc-3.3 1:3.3ds9-1 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

Bug#170994: marked as done ([fixed in 3.x] ICE on __builtin_memset(s, 0, -1) (2.95 only))

Your message dated Sat, 17 May 2003 17:32:46 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#170994: fixed in gcc-3.3 1:3.3ds9-1 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

Bug#180567: marked as done ([fixed in 3.3] Broken zip file handling)

Your message dated Sat, 17 May 2003 17:32:48 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#180567: fixed in gcc-3.3 1:3.3ds9-1 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

Bug#176387: marked as done ([PR optimization/9279, fixed in 3.3] {sparc} gcc-3.2 regression (wrong code))

Your message dated Sat, 17 May 2003 17:32:47 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#176387: fixed in gcc-3.3 1:3.3ds9-1 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

Bug#178596: marked as done ([fixed in 3.3] {s390} operand out of range at assembly time when using -O2)

Your message dated Sat, 17 May 2003 17:32:47 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#178596: fixed in gcc-3.3 1:3.3ds9-1 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

Bug#178830: marked as done ([fixed in 3.3] {ia64} gcc-3.2 fails w/ optimization)

Your message dated Sat, 17 May 2003 17:32:47 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#178830: fixed in gcc-3.3 1:3.3ds9-1 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

Bug#185903: marked as done ([PR 10194] [3.2 regression, fixed in 3.3] [arm] gcc optimization error with -O2, affecting bison)

Your message dated Sat, 17 May 2003 17:32:49 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#185903: fixed in gcc-3.3 1:3.3ds9-1 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

debian-gcc@lists.debian.org

Your message dated Sat, 17 May 2003 17:32:50 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#2910: fixed in gcc-3.3 1:3.3ds9-1 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

Bug#178965: marked as done ([PR 10113, 3.2/3.3/3.4 sparc regression] ICE when optimizing (gen_reg_rtx, at emit-rtl.c:662))

Your message dated Sat, 17 May 2003 17:32:47 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#178965: fixed in gcc-3.3 1:3.3ds9-1 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

Bug#186139: marked as done ([fixed in 3.3] [alpha] va_start is off by one)

Your message dated Sat, 17 May 2003 17:32:49 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#186139: fixed in gcc-3.3 1:3.3ds9-1 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

Bug#50529: marked as done ([fixed in g++-3.0] volatile undefined...)

Your message dated Sat, 17 May 2003 17:32:52 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#50529: fixed in gcc-3.3 1:3.3ds9-1 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

Bug#180493: marked as done ([fixed in 3.3] m68k - ICE in instantiate_virtual_regs_1, at function.c:3980)

Your message dated Sat, 17 May 2003 17:32:48 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#180493: fixed in gcc-3.3 1:3.3ds9-1 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

Bug#48530: marked as done (g++ [fixed in 2.96 CVS Feb 2000] [alpha]: internal compiler error building open-amulet)

Your message dated Sat, 17 May 2003 17:32:52 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#48530: fixed in gcc-3.3 1:3.3ds9-1 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

Bug#179363: marked as done ([PR other/9813] misplaced paragraph in Constructing Calls node)

Your message dated Sat, 17 May 2003 17:32:47 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#179363: fixed in gcc-3.3 1:3.3ds9-1 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

Bug#179597: marked as done ([Fixed with 3.3 20030129 (prerelease)] Internal compiler error: Error reporting routines re-entered.)

Your message dated Sat, 17 May 2003 17:32:47 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#179597: fixed in gcc-3.3 1:3.3ds9-1 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

Bug#55291: marked as done ([alpha; fixed in upstream CVS] internal compiler compiling hatman)

Your message dated Sat, 17 May 2003 17:32:52 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#55291: fixed in gcc-3.3 1:3.3ds9-1 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

Bug#184108: marked as done ([fixed in 3.3] ICE when warning about cleanup nastiness in switch statements)

Your message dated Sat, 17 May 2003 17:32:48 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#184108: fixed in gcc-3.3 1:3.3ds9-1 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

Bug#180750: marked as done ([PR target/9790] [3.2 regression on arm, fixed in 3.3] ICE with -O2 (change_address_1, at emit-rtl.c:1945))

Your message dated Sat, 17 May 2003 17:32:48 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#180750: fixed in gcc-3.3 1:3.3ds9-1 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

Bug#58219: marked as done ([fixed in upstream gcc-20000116] Compiler barfs with -O on specific file)

Your message dated Sat, 17 May 2003 17:32:53 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#58219: fixed in gcc-3.3 1:3.3ds9-1 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

Bug#59005: marked as done ([fix with libstdc++-v3] compilation error in stl_alloc.h with -fhonor-std)

Your message dated Sat, 17 May 2003 17:32:53 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#59005: fixed in gcc-3.3 1:3.3ds9-1 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

Bug#51651: marked as done ([done with gcc-2.96] please use --enable-nls & --enable-c-mbchar)

Your message dated Sat, 17 May 2003 17:32:52 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#51651: fixed in gcc-3.3 1:3.3ds9-1 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

Bug#181679: marked as done ([fixed in gcc-3.3] Preelaborate, exceptions, and -gnatN)

Your message dated Sat, 17 May 2003 17:32:48 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#181679: fixed in gcc-3.3 1:3.3ds9-1 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

Bug#184800: marked as done ([fixed in 3.3] ICE while building mplayer)

Your message dated Sat, 17 May 2003 17:32:48 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#184800: fixed in gcc-3.3 1:3.3ds9-1 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

Bug#187910: marked as done ([fixed in 3.3] ICE while compiling mozilla with -march=pentium4)

Your message dated Sat, 17 May 2003 17:32:49 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#187910: fixed in gcc-3.3 1:3.3ds9-1 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

Bug#84969: marked as done ([PR target/491] can't compile php4 on arm)

Your message dated Sat, 17 May 2003 17:32:56 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#83550: fixed in gcc-3.3 1:3.3ds9-1 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

Bug#189702: marked as done ([PR 10580] [fixed in 3.3] [powerpc] ICE with -O -Wunreachable-code)

Your message dated Sat, 17 May 2003 17:32:49 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#189702: fixed in gcc-3.3 1:3.3ds9-1 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

Bug#34876: marked as done ([fixed upstream 001117] vtable thunks implementation is broken)

Your message dated Sat, 17 May 2003 17:32:50 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#34876: fixed in gcc-3.3 1:3.3ds9-1 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

Bug#62309: marked as done ([fixed in 3.0] Internal compiler error: program cc1obj got fatal signal 11)

Your message dated Sat, 17 May 2003 17:32:54 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#62309: fixed in gcc-3.3 1:3.3ds9-1 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

Bug#83221: marked as done ([fixed in 3.0] g++ dies with internal error)

Your message dated Sat, 17 May 2003 17:32:55 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#83221: fixed in gcc-3.3 1:3.3ds9-1 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

Bug#94701: marked as done ([PR optimization/2960] Duplicate loop conditions even with -Os)

Your message dated Sat, 17 May 2003 17:32:57 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#94701: fixed in gcc-3.3 1:3.3ds9-1 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

Bug#33786: marked as done ([fixed upstream 001117] uncaught floating point exception causes gcc internal compiler error)

Your message dated Sat, 17 May 2003 17:32:50 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#33786: fixed in gcc-3.3 1:3.3ds9-1 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

  1   2   >