PLEASE REPLY TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ONLY, *NOT* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8600
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
PLEASE REPLY TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ONLY, *NOT* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10984
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
PLEASE REPLY TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ONLY, *NOT* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10984
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
PLEASE REPLY TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ONLY, *NOT* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10984
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
PLEASE REPLY TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ONLY, *NOT* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10984
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
OtherBugsDependingO|
PLEASE REPLY TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ONLY, *NOT* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11052
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2003-06-02 10:18 ---
Created an attachment (id=4135)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=4135action=view)
PLEASE REPLY TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ONLY, *NOT* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11052
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
PLEASE REPLY TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ONLY, *NOT* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11054
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Package: libstdc++5-3.3-dev
Version: 3.3-2
Severity: important
This affects the header file c++/3.3/mips-linux/bits/atomicity.h on the
Mips target only. When included, it leads to trouble on sources that
declare or define unused in some manner. This is why the version with
double underscore is
Package: g++
Version: 2:2.95.4-14
Severity: normal
If you try to compile the program given below you will get the
following:
$ g++ test.cc
test.cc: In function `int main()':
test.cc:24: no matching function for call to `B::p1 (int)'
test.cc:16: candidates are: void B::p1()
So, the function
PLEASE REPLY TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ONLY, *NOT* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11052
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target
PLEASE REPLY TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ONLY, *NOT* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11052
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2003-06-02 17:09 ---
Subject: Re: [3.3 regression] [arm] ICE (segfault)
compiling xfree86
Bizzare. Your analysis does
Package: gcc-3.3
Version: 3.3-2
| [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/gdbm-1.8.3$ gcc -O2 -Wall -c gdbmopen.c
| gdbmopen.c: In function `gdbm_open':
| gdbmopen.c:15: warning: `lock_val' might be used uninitialized in this
function
| fstat (dbf-desc, file_stat);
|
| if ((flags GDBM_OPENMASK) ==
PLEASE REPLY TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ONLY, *NOT* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11052
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2003-06-02 17:34 ---
Well, you're the ARM maintainer, so I suspect your analysis is much closer...
Also could be because
On Mon, Jun 02, 2003 at 02:14:13PM +0200, Richard B. Kreckel wrote:
It appears, that this has slipped in with GCC-3.3 upstream. I have
submitted a bugreport with a patch against GCC, see [0]. It would be
helpful if this two-liner (the Mips, part, never mind the AIX part) could
be applied to
Phil Edwards writes:
On Mon, Jun 02, 2003 at 02:14:13PM +0200, Richard B. Kreckel wrote:
It appears, that this has slipped in with GCC-3.3 upstream. I have
submitted a bugreport with a patch against GCC, see [0]. It would be
helpful if this two-liner (the Mips, part, never mind the AIX
On Mon, Jun 02, 2003 at 10:19:33PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
Phil Edwards writes:
On Mon, Jun 02, 2003 at 02:14:13PM +0200, Richard B. Kreckel wrote:
It appears, that this has slipped in with GCC-3.3 upstream. I have
submitted a bugreport with a patch against GCC, see [0]. It would
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
# submitted Debian report #195796 to gcc-gnats as PR 11062
# http://gcc.gnu.org/PR11062
forwarded 195796 http://gcc.gnu.org/PR11062
Bug#195796: libstdc++-v3 uses __attribute__((unknown)) again, instead of
__attribute__((__unknown__))
Noted your
On Mon, May 26, 2003 at 10:22:51PM -0700, Randolph Chung wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ gcc -shared -fPIC -o blah.so blah.c
/tmp/ccC3fZeH.o(.text+0x1c): In function `call_foo':
: undefined reference to `foo'
This should fix it. Would someone mind applying it for me? I'm in
transit at the
LAST_UPDATED:
Native configuration is powerpc-unknown-linux-gnu
=== g++ tests ===
Running target unix
XPASS: g++.other/init5.C Execution test
=== g++ Summary ===
# of expected passes7349
# of unexpected successes 1
# of expected failures
LAST_UPDATED:
Native configuration is alpha-unknown-linux-gnu
=== libstdc++-v3 tests ===
Running target unix
XPASS: 22_locale/collate_byname.cc execution test
XPASS: 22_locale/collate_members_char.cc execution test
XPASS: 22_locale/collate_members_wchar_t.cc execution test
LAST_UPDATED:
Native configuration is s390-ibm-linux-gnu
=== g++ tests ===
Running target unix
FAIL: g++.eh/terminate2.C Execution test
XPASS: g++.other/init5.C Execution test
=== g++ Summary ===
# of expected passes7348
# of unexpected failures
LAST_UPDATED: Sat May 31 08:01:13 UTC 2003
Native configuration is sparc-unknown-linux-gnu
=== g++ tests ===
Running target unix
FAIL: g++.dg/eh/simd-1.C (test for excess errors)
WARNING: g++.dg/eh/simd-1.C compilation failed to produce executable
FAIL: g++.dg/eh/simd-2.C (test
LAST_UPDATED: Sat May 31 08:01:13 UTC 2003
Native configuration is powerpc-unknown-linux-gnu
=== g++ tests ===
Running target unix
FAIL: g++.dg/ext/pretty1.C scan-assembler top level
FAIL: g++.dg/ext/pretty2.C (test for excess errors)
WARNING: g++.dg/ext/pretty2.C compilation
Package: gcc-3.3
Version: 1:3.3-2
Severity: minor
Tags: upstream
It seems as if gcc-3.3 has some builtin stuff which causes wrong
reports on shadowed declarations. These are the warnings caused by a
build of the current proftpd cvs tree:
---
main.c: In function `session_exit':
main.c:382:
On Mon, Jun 02, 2003 at 05:10:38PM -0400, John David Anglin wrote:
tmpdir/sh1p.o(.text+0x0): In function `shlib_mainvar':
/home/dave/binutils-2.14.90/src/ld/testsuite/ld-elfvsb/sh1.c:32: undefined
refer
ence to `mainvar'
...
FAIL: visibility (hidden)
Fixing this one probably requires
On Tue, Jun 03, 2003 at 12:50:31AM +0200, Michael Renner wrote:
Package: gcc-3.3
Version: 1:3.3-2
Severity: minor
Tags: upstream
It seems as if gcc-3.3 has some builtin stuff which causes wrong
reports on shadowed declarations. These are the warnings caused by a
build of the current
27 matches
Mail list logo
