g++-3.{2,3}: dangling link in man1

2003-06-13 Thread Boris Daix
Package: g++-3.2, g++-3.3 Version: 1:3.2.3-4, 1:3.3-3 Severity: minor Hi, , | /etc/cron.daily/man-db: | mandb: warning: /usr/share/man/man1/i386-linux-g++-3.3.1 is a dangling symlink | mandb: warning: /usr/share/man/man1/i386-linux-g++-3.2.1 is a dangling symlink ` They should point

Bug#196563: Processed: Re: Bug#196563: fontconfig: [m68k] segfault during postinst

2003-06-13 Thread Michael Schmitz
Indeed, all freetype/libfreetype combos did work fine with libfreetype6_2.1.4-1_m68k.deb and libfreetype6_2.1.4-2_m68k.deb from the apt cache. You mean fontconfig/libfreetype? Nope, fontconfig/libfonconfig1 - any of those work as long as libfreetype is OK. Michael

xfree86 compilation / gcc-3.3 strict aliasing

2003-06-13 Thread Matthias Klose
Looking at the build logs you'll see many warnings: dereferencing type-punned pointer will break strict-aliasing rules Is it safe to ignore these warnings? Please could you try to compile using -O2 -fno-strict-aliasing to see if this is related to the recent miscompilation using gcc-3.3?

Bug#197090: gcj-3.3: babel fails with 3.3, works with 3.2...

2003-06-13 Thread Matthias Klose
This report is very vague. Should it be submitted to bugzilla anyway? Adam C Powell IV writes: Package: gcj-3.3 Version: 1:3.3-3 Severity: normal Hello, Okay, so this is kind of a vague bug at this point, but here's what I know: with gcj-3.2 installed, babel compiles and runs just fine;

Processed: gcc: submitted Debian report #197099 to gcc-gnats as PR 11183

2003-06-13 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: # submitted Debian report #197099 to gcc-gnats as PR 11183 # http://gcc.gnu.org/PR11183 forwarded 197099 http://gcc.gnu.org/PR11183 Bug#197099: [3.3 arm regression] internal compiler error: in change_address_1, at emit-rtl.c:2017 Noted your statement

Re: xfree86 compilation / gcc-3.3 strict aliasing

2003-06-13 Thread James Troup
Matthias Klose [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Looking at the build logs you'll see many warnings: dereferencing type-punned pointer will break strict-aliasing rules Is it safe to ignore these warnings? Please could you try to compile using -O2 -fno-strict-aliasing to see if this is related

Processed: Re: Bug#196380: libstdc++5-3.3-doc: lower_bound is not well documented

2003-06-13 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: retitle 196380 [fixed in 3.4] libstdc++5-3.3-doc: lower_bound is not well documented Bug#196380: libstdc++5-3.3-doc: lower_bound is not well documented Changed Bug title. forwarded 196380 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Bug#196380: [fixed in 3.4]

Processed: Re: Bug#196381: libstdc++5-3.3-doc: Main Page is a bad title

2003-06-13 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: severity 196381 wishlist Bug#196381: libstdc++5-3.3-doc: Main Page is a bad title Severity set to `wishlist'. forwarded 196381 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Bug#196381: libstdc++5-3.3-doc: Main Page is a bad title Noted your statement that Bug has been forwarded

Bug#189466: marked as done (Fully qualified name with arch desirable)

2003-06-13 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System
Your message dated Fri, 13 Jun 2003 11:51:42 +0200 with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED] and subject line Processed: Fixed in NMU of gcc-3.2 1:3.2.3ds9-4 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

Bug#195353: marked as done (java.net.SocketException: SO_REUSEADDR: not valid for TCP)

2003-06-13 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System
Your message dated Fri, 13 Jun 2003 12:21:53 +0200 with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED] and subject line Bug#195353: java.net.SocketException: SO_REUSEADDR: not valid for TCP has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If

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

2003-06-13 Thread [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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 CC|

Bug#67206: [Bug optimization/6901] optimiser could be improved

2003-06-13 Thread [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PLEASE REPLY TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ONLY, *NOT* [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6901 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2003-06-13 11:04 --- Case 1 is fixed. Case 2 is still present in gcc 3.3 and is identical as before. Case 3 is gone as gcc

Bug#192634: [Bug target/10730] [3.3 regression] [arm] -O2 generates invalid asm

2003-06-13 Thread [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PLEASE REPLY TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ONLY, *NOT* [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10730 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added GCC target triplet|

Bug#166255: [Bug target/8606] GNAT floating point optimization bug

2003-06-13 Thread [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PLEASE REPLY TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ONLY, *NOT* [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8606 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added GCC target triplet|

Bug#197090: gcj-3.3: babel fails with 3.3, works with 3.2...

2003-06-13 Thread Tom Tromey
Matthias == Matthias Klose [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Matthias This report is very vague. Should it be submitted to bugzilla anyway? Could you get more info first? Ideally the reporter could find out exactly what goes wrong. Tom

Bug#67206: [Bug optimization/6901] optimiser could be improved (removing unused local variables)

2003-06-13 Thread [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PLEASE REPLY TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ONLY, *NOT* [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6901 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added

Bug#166255: [Bug target/8606] GNAT floating point optimization bug

2003-06-13 Thread [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PLEASE REPLY TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ONLY, *NOT* [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8606 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added

Bug#186185: [Bug target/10206] [3.3/3.4 regression][arm] ICE in emit-rtl.c:change_address_1 when compiling fftw

2003-06-13 Thread [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PLEASE REPLY TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ONLY, *NOT* [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10206 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added GCC target triplet|

Results for 3.2.3 (Debian) testsuite on m68k-unknown-linux-gnu

2003-06-13 Thread Matthias Klose
LAST_UPDATED: Native configuration is m68k-unknown-linux-gnu === g++ tests === Running target unix FAIL: g++.eh/spec3.C Execution test FAIL: g++.eh/spec4.C Execution test XPASS: g++.other/init5.C Execution test === g++ Summary === # of expected passes

Bug#67206: [Bug optimization/9363] unused struct literal constants remain

2003-06-13 Thread [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PLEASE REPLY TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ONLY, *NOT* [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9363 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC|

Bug#67206: [Bug optimization/6901] optimiser could be improved (removing unused local variables)

2003-06-13 Thread [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PLEASE REPLY TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ONLY, *NOT* [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6901 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added BugsThisDependsOn|