Accepted:
cpp-3.3-doc_3.3.1-0rc2_all.deb
to pool/main/g/gcc-3.3/cpp-3.3-doc_3.3.1-0rc2_all.deb
cpp-3.3_3.3.1-0rc2_i386.deb
to pool/main/g/gcc-3.3/cpp-3.3_3.3.1-0rc2_i386.deb
fastjar_3.3.1-0rc2_i386.deb
to pool/main/g/gcc-3.3/fastjar_3.3.1-0rc2_i386.deb
fixincludes_3.3.1-0rc2_i386.deb
to
Accepted:
cpp-3.3_3.3.1-0rc2_hppa.deb
to pool/main/g/gcc-3.3/cpp-3.3_3.3.1-0rc2_hppa.deb
fastjar_3.3.1-0rc2_hppa.deb
to pool/main/g/gcc-3.3/fastjar_3.3.1-0rc2_hppa.deb
fixincludes_3.3.1-0rc2_hppa.deb
to pool/main/g/gcc-3.3/fixincludes_3.3.1-0rc2_hppa.deb
g++-3.3_3.3.1-0rc2_hppa.deb
to
Your message dated Tue, 29 Jul 2003 01:32:41 -0400
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#202696: fixed in gcc-3.3 1:3.3.1ds2-0rc2
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
Your message dated Tue, 29 Jul 2003 01:32:41 -0400
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#192576: fixed in gcc-3.3 1:3.3.1ds2-0rc2
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
Your message dated Tue, 29 Jul 2003 01:32:40 -0400
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#177840: fixed in gcc-3.3 1:3.3.1ds2-0rc2
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
Your message dated Tue, 29 Jul 2003 01:32:41 -0400
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#190818: fixed in gcc-3.3 1:3.3.1ds2-0rc2
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
Your message dated Tue, 29 Jul 2003 01:32:41 -0400
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#199835: fixed in gcc-3.3 1:3.3.1ds2-0rc2
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
As gcc changelog.Debian states, bugs filed against earlier versions of gcc
(e.g. gcc-3.2 or gcc-2.95) are closed when they are fixed in later version
(e.g. gcc 3.3).
Is that really correct?
gcc-3.2 package is still in Debian and still contains those bugs. So IMHO
bugs should be still opened
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
submitter 203317 Rene Engelhard [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#203317: g++-3.2: Internal compiler error in emit_move_insn
Changed Bug submitter from Rene Engelhard [EMAIL PROTECTED] to Rene
Engelhard [EMAIL PROTECTED].
End of message, stopping processing
Package: g++-3.3
Version: 1:3.3.1-0rc1
Severity: important
The g++-3.3 parser fails to parse the code bellow with the following error
message:
test.cc:33: error: declaration of `Bitmap::operator GdkBitmap*() const'
test.cc:23: error: conflicts with previous declaration `Bitmap::operator
PLEASE REPLY TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ONLY, *NOT* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11635
pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu changed:
What|Removed |Added
GCC
PLEASE REPLY TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ONLY, *NOT* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11634
pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Nikita V. Youshchenko [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
As gcc changelog.Debian states, bugs filed against earlier versions of gcc
(e.g. gcc-3.2 or gcc-2.95) are closed when they are fixed in later version
(e.g. gcc 3.3).
Is that really correct?
gcc-3.2 package is still in Debian and still
date||
Target Milestone|3.4 |3.3.2
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu 2003-07-29
19:51 ---
I can confirm this on the mainline (20030729) and 3.3.1 (20030707).
From Phil's regression hunter:
: Search
Nikita V. Youshchenko [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
As gcc changelog.Debian states, bugs filed against earlier versions
of gcc (e.g. gcc-3.2 or gcc-2.95) are closed when they are fixed in
later version (e.g. gcc 3.3).
Is that really correct?
gcc-3.2 package is still in Debian and still
Your message dated Tue, 29 Jul 2003 22:25:26 +0200
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#119952: should bug #119952 be closed?
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
Your message dated Tue, 29 Jul 2003 22:25:26 +0200
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#119952: should bug #119952 be closed?
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
Your message dated Tue, 29 Jul 2003 22:25:26 +0200
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#119952: should bug #119952 be closed?
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
Your message dated Tue, 29 Jul 2003 22:26:51 +0200
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#203023: g++-2.95.4 woody/stable crashes on syntax error
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
Your message dated Tue, 29 Jul 2003 22:25:26 +0200
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#119952: should bug #119952 be closed?
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
Your message dated Tue, 29 Jul 2003 22:25:26 +0200
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#119952: should bug #119952 be closed?
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
Clint Adams writes:
- can you identify the file beeing miscompiled?
No, I don't seem to be able to do that. If I compile with -O1, it
works. If I compile with -O2, it segfaults. If I compile all objects
-O2 except the ones that seem to be relevant in the backtrace, it still
Alex Romosan writes:
Matthias Klose [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
please the bug reporting instructions: with preprocessed source if
appropriate.
we are talking here about the kernel source. it's in linux/kernel/fork.c
is there a real problem for you sending the preprocessed source?
Your message dated Tue, 29 Jul 2003 22:25:26 +0200
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#119952: should bug #119952 be closed?
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
Your message dated Tue, 29 Jul 2003 22:25:26 +0200
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#119952: should bug #119952 be closed?
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
Your message dated Tue, 29 Jul 2003 22:25:26 +0200
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#119952: should bug #119952 be closed?
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
Nikita V. Youshchenko wrote:
gcc 3.3 is an update for gcc 3.2, so it fixes bugs reported in gcc.
But what about bugs reported on gcc-3.2?
Why is the answer to that question of any relevance for Debian?
Regards,
Martin
PLEASE REPLY TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ONLY, *NOT* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11716
pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Alex Romosan writes:
Matthias Klose [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Alex Romosan writes:
Matthias Klose [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
please the bug reporting instructions: with preprocessed source if
appropriate.
we are talking here about the kernel source. it's in linux/kernel/fork.c
Clint Adams writes:
[this message only refers to testing that was only done on hppa]
- does it work with gcc-3.2?
- does it work with gcc-snapshot?
No, with -O2 it breaks on
gcc-3.23.2.3-6
gcc-3.33.3.1-0rc1
gcc-snapshot 20030722-1
but it did work with gcc-2.95?
Matthias Klose [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Alex Romosan writes:
Matthias Klose [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
please the bug reporting instructions: with preprocessed source if
appropriate.
we are talking here about the kernel source. it's in linux/kernel/fork.c
is there a real problem for
Matthias Klose [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Alex Romosan writes:
Matthias Klose [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Alex Romosan writes:
Matthias Klose [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
please the bug reporting instructions: with preprocessed source if
appropriate.
we are talking here about the
On Tue, Jul 29, 2003 at 02:20:18PM -0700, Alex Romosan wrote:
Matthias Klose [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Alex Romosan writes:
Matthias Klose [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
please the bug reporting instructions: with preprocessed source if
appropriate.
we are talking here about the
LAST_UPDATED:
Native configuration is arm-unknown-linux-gnu
=== libstdc++-v3 tests ===
Running target unix
FAIL: 18_support/numeric_limits.cc execution test
XPASS: 22_locale/collate_byname.cc execution test
XPASS: 22_locale/collate_members_char.cc execution test
XPASS:
LAST_UPDATED: Mon Jul 28 18:38:03 UTC 2003
Native configuration is hppa-unknown-linux-gnu
=== g++ tests ===
Running target unix
FAIL: g++.dg/compat/break/bitfield7 x_tst.o compile
UNRESOLVED: g++.dg/compat/break/bitfield7 x_tst.o-y_tst.o link
UNRESOLVED:
LAST_UPDATED: Mon Jul 28 18:38:03 UTC 2003
Native configuration is alpha-unknown-linux-gnu
=== libjava tests ===
Running target unix
FAIL: initexc execution - gij test
FAIL: initexc execution - gij test
=== libjava Summary ===
# of expected passes
LAST_UPDATED: Mon Jul 28 18:38:03 UTC 2003
Native configuration is ia64-unknown-linux-gnu
=== g++ tests ===
Running target unix
FAIL: g++.dg/tls/init-2.C (test for excess errors)
XPASS: g++.other/init5.C Execution test
=== g++ Summary ===
# of expected passes
LAST_UPDATED: Mon Jul 28 18:38:03 UTC 2003
Native configuration is powerpc-unknown-linux-gnu
=== g++ tests ===
Running target unix
XPASS: g++.dg/other/packed1.C execution test
XPASS: g++.other/init5.C Execution test
=== g++ Summary ===
# of expected passes
Matt Zimmerman writes:
On Wed, Jul 16, 2003 at 11:54:04PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
My previous, working configuration was:
alsa-driver 0.9.2-2
kernel 2.4.20 (evms, skas, and a small usbnet patch)
The broken configuration is:
alsa-driver 0.9.4-1
kernel
On Tue, Jul 29, 2003 at 02:49:12PM -0700, Alex Romosan wrote:
if you go to http://db.debian.org/machines.cgi you'll find a list of
all the machines available to debian developers. escher.debian.org,
faure.debian.org, lully.debian.org are all alpha machines so it looks
like you _do_ have an
Phil Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I can get fork.c. I cannot get the result of preprocessing fork.c
unless I have an Alpha.
i guess you are really testing the compilers for all architectures
then :-( you broke building the kernel on a sparc for about half a
year before reverting to gcc
Phil Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I am not a Debian developer. I am a GCC developer. If you want GCC's
help to debug problems, you need to fulfill GCC's requirements, namely,
send us preprocessed code.
i am so sorry. the rant was meant for the debian developers only. i
filed a bug
Alex Romosan writes:
Phil Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I can get fork.c. I cannot get the result of preprocessing fork.c
unless I have an Alpha.
i guess you are really testing the compilers for all architectures
then :-( you broke building the kernel on a sparc for about half a
Matthias Klose [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
your claims are as accurate as your bug reports.
* Make gcc-3.3 the default C compiler (Thu, 15 May 2003 20:46:56 +0200)
* Bump sparc back down to 3.2 (Wed, 4 Jun 2003 11:39:53 -0400)
gcc-3.2-pre broke at the beginning of 2003 for compiling the
Phil Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If you want bugs on the unstable branch fixed, then /help/. Don't
bitch. Don't whine. Don't complain. HELP. (In this case, reproduce
the bug and find the patch that introduced the bug.)
i don't want a development branch of gcc to be made the default
On Tue, Jul 29, 2003 at 03:42:30PM -0700, Alex Romosan wrote:
Matthias Klose [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
if you don't accept toolchain bugs, stay away from unstable and
testing. if you want to help the projects, help with your time and
knowledge.
we've had this discussion before (on may
Submitter-Id: net
Originator:Zephaniah E. Hull
Confidential: no
Synopsis: ICE on valid code with SSE and -fnew-ra
Severity: serious
Priority: low
Category: c
Class: ice-on-legal-code
Release: 3.3.1 20030722 (Debian prerelease) (Debian testing/unstable)
PLEASE REPLY TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ONLY, *NOT* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11717
pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu changed:
What|Removed |Added
PLEASE REPLY TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ONLY, *NOT* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11717
pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu changed:
What|Removed |Added
PLEASE REPLY TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ONLY, *NOT* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11717
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu 2003-07-30
00:37 ---
I now found option which makes gcc ice, it also ICEs in 3.3.1 20030714.
--- You
A bug in gcc 3.3 branch on ia64 just bit ARTS. (PR target/10681)
The bug was fixed *today* in GCC CVS. (As of 2 hours ago).
So it would probably be a good idea to upload a new gcc-3.3 incorporating
this fix ASAP so as to delay ARTS and its dependent packages as little as
possible. I know you
51 matches
Mail list logo
