Bug#195899: gcc-snapshot_20030531-2(mips/unstable): FTBFS: use -O2 for mipsen?

Package: gcc-snapshot Version: 20030531-2 Severity: serious There was an error while trying to autobuild your package: Automatic build of gcc-snapshot_20030531-2 on resume.rfc822.org by sbuild/mips 1.170 Build started at 20030601-1033 [...] ** Using build dependencies supplied by package:

Bug#195899: gcc-snapshot_20030531-2(mips/unstable): FTBFS: use -O2 for mipsen?

Ryan Murray writes: Package: gcc-snapshot Version: 20030531-2 Severity: serious There was an error while trying to autobuild your package: It looks like -O isn't enough to build gcc-snapshot anymore -- can we get it changed to -O2 for now on mips and mipsel rather than -O? Please change

Bug#195899: gcc-snapshot_20030531-2(mips/unstable): FTBFS: use -O2 for mipsen?

On Tue, Jun 03, 2003 at 11:52:59AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote: Ryan Murray writes: Package: gcc-snapshot Version: 20030531-2 Severity: serious There was an error while trying to autobuild your package: It looks like -O isn't enough to build gcc-snapshot anymore -- can we get it

Processed: reassign back to libc6-dev, gcc's build-dep is not at (= 2.3.1)

Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: reassign 194339 libc6-dev Bug#194339: __thread problem with woody backports of gcc 3.3 Bug reassigned from package `gcc-3.3' to `libc6-dev'. thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. Debian bug tracking system

Bug#195369: marked as done (gcc-3.3 seems to need a versioned build dependency on a doxygen)

Your message dated Tue, 3 Jun 2003 12:44:48 +0200 with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED] and subject line 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 responsibility to reopen

Bug#195915: gcc-3.3: undefined labels with -Os -fPIC

Package: gcc-3.3 Version: 1:3.3-2 Severity: important Tags: upstream While compiling XFree86 CVS with gcc-3.3 it compiles fine with default optimization flags; but trying to compile with -Os results in undefined symbols in shared libraries (i.e. this problem is only seen with -fPIC and not

Bug#195911: gcc-3.3: undefined labels with -Os -fPIC

Package: gcc-3.3 Version: 1:3.3-2 Severity: important Tags: upstream While compiling XFree86 CVS with gcc-3.3 it compiles fine with default optimization flags; but trying to compile with -Os results in undefined symbols in shared libraries (i.e. this problem is only seen with -fPIC and not

Bug#195919: gcc-3.3: undefined labels with -Os -fPIC

Package: gcc-3.3 Version: 1:3.3-2 Severity: important Tags: upstream While compiling XFree86 CVS with gcc-3.3 it compiles fine with default optimization flags; but trying to compile with -Os results in undefined symbols in shared libraries (i.e. this problem is only seen with -fPIC and not

[Bug target/11052] [3.3 regression] [arm] ICE (segfault) compiling xfree86

PLEASE REPLY TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ONLY, *NOT* [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11052 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2003-06-03 12:25 --- Subject: Re: [3.3 regression] [arm] ICE (segfault) compiling xfree86 Well, you're the ARM

Processed: Re: Bug#195915: gcc-3.3: undefined labels with -Os -fPIC

Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: merge 195911 195913 Bug#195911: gcc-3.3: undefined labels with -Os -fPIC Bug#195913: gcc-3.3: undefined labels with -Os -fPIC Merged 195911 195913. merge 195911 195915 Bug#195911: gcc-3.3: undefined labels with -Os -fPIC Bug#195915: gcc-3.3: undefined

Bug#195806: marked as done (g++: inheritance of overloaded function)

Your message dated Tue, 3 Jun 2003 14:32:45 +0200 with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED] and subject line Bug#195806: g++: inheritance of overloaded function 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

[Bug target/11052] [3.3 regression] [arm] ICE (segfault) compiling xfree86

PLEASE REPLY TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ONLY, *NOT* [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11052 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2003-06-03 15:13 --- Subject: Re: [3.3 regression] [arm] ICE (segfault) compiling xfree86 [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: I

gcc-snapshot_20030531-2_arm.changes ACCEPTED

Accepted: gcc-snapshot_20030531-2_arm.deb to pool/main/g/gcc-snapshot/gcc-snapshot_20030531-2_arm.deb Thank you for your contribution to Debian.

[Bug target/11052] [3.3 regression] [arm] noce_process_if_block() can loose REG_INC notes

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

Bug#195369: gcc-3.3 seems to need a versioned build dependency on a doxygen

On Fri, May 30, 2003 at 10:54:51AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote: Adrian Bunk writes: Package: gcc-3.3 Version: 1:3.3-2 Severity: normal Building gcc-3.3 on a woody system with some additional updates produces the following messages: -- snip -- It seems a versioned build

[Bug target/11052] [3.3 regression] [arm] noce_process_if_block() can loose REG_INC notes

PLEASE REPLY TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ONLY, *NOT* [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11052 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2003-06-03 16:12 --- Subject: Re: [3.3 regression] [arm] ICE (segfault) compiling xfree86 On Tue, Jun 03, 2003 at

[Bug target/11052] [3.3 regression] [arm] noce_process_if_block() can loose REG_INC notes

PLEASE REPLY TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ONLY, *NOT* [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11052 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2003-06-03 16:52 --- Subject: Re: [3.3 regression] [arm] ICE (segfault) compiling xfree86 On Tue, Jun 03, 2003 at

Results for 3.4 20030531 (experimental) testsuite on arm-unknown-linux-gnu

LAST_UPDATED: Sat May 31 08:01:13 UTC 2003 Native configuration is arm-unknown-linux-gnu === libjava tests === Running target unix FAIL: natlongfield.cc compilation FAIL: natshortfield.cc compilation FAIL: calls run WARNING: program timed out. FAIL: cxxtest run FAIL: field run

Bug#195865: gcc-3.3 wrongly complains about shadowed declarations

On Mon, 2 Jun 2003, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: 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

Bug#195865: marked as done (gcc-3.3 wrongly complains about shadowed declarations)

Your message dated Tue, 3 Jun 2003 17:59:17 -0400 with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED] and subject line Bug#195865: gcc-3.3 wrongly complains about shadowed declarations 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

-fnew-ra produces slow code for FFTW

Submitter-Id: net Originator:Matteo Frigo Organization: lost during childhood Confidential: no Synopsis: A case where -fnew-ra seriously degrades performance Severity: serious Priority: low Category: optimization Class: pessimizes-code Release: 3.3

[Bug target/11052] [3.3 regression] [arm] noce_process_if_block() can loose REG_INC notes

PLEASE REPLY TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ONLY, *NOT* [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11052 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2003-06-03 22:24 --- Subject: Re: [3.3 regression] [arm] ICE (segfault) compiling xfree86 On Tue, Jun 03, 2003 at

[Bug target/11084] [mips] regression from 3.2 ICE in propagate_one_insn, at flow.c:1639

PLEASE REPLY TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ONLY, *NOT* [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11084 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC|