Your message dated Sun, 2 Nov 2003 20:54:21 -0600
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug is invalid
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 re
A response based on my new test case arrived quickly:
Not a bug as the buf field of DatagramPacket is private so you should
not be able to use it any way. It just happens that ClassPath uses
buffer as the name for the field rather than the same name as all the
other JDK's but that is
PLEASE REPLY TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ONLY, *NOT* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9077
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Your message dated Sun, 2 Nov 2003 20:56:48 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#218859: libstdc++5: dependency on libc6.1 2.3.2.ds1-4 ?
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
Package: libstdc++5
Version: 1:3.3.2-1
Severity: important
Tags: sid
Why does this package now depend on version >= 2.3.2.ds1-4 of libc6.1? Isn't
2.3.2. good enough?
On ia64, libc6.1 >= 2.3.2-8 is broken (see bug 216466). So, I can hold this
back. Previously, that wasn't a problem. But many thing
PLEASE REPLY TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ONLY, *NOT* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9077
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
PLEASE REPLY TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ONLY, *NOT* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9077
--- Additional Comments From pronovic at debian dot org 2003-11-02 23:43
---
After talking with the Debian maintainer, I have come up with a smaller test
case that I hope w
PLEASE REPLY TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ONLY, *NOT* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9077
--- Additional Comments From pronovic at debian dot org 2003-11-02 23:45
---
Created an attachment (id=5043)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=5043&action
LAST_UPDATED:
Native configuration is s390-ibm-linux-gnu
=== g++ tests ===
Running target unix
XPASS: g++.other/init5.C Execution test
=== g++ Summary ===
# of expected passes8108
# of unexpected successes 1
# of expected failures 94
LAST_UPDATED:
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 passes2987
# of unexpected failures
PLEASE REPLY TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ONLY, *NOT* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12871
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2003-11-02
21:56 ---
Some how related to bug 8010?
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You
PLEASE REPLY TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ONLY, *NOT* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12871
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
> For reports forwarded upstream it is certainly useful to subscribe to
> the upstream report as well.
I will plan on doing this in the future.
> This particular report was erreanously forwarded with a -quiet
> submitter address, so I didn't notice much progress, however I did
> check that the s
PLEASE REPLY TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ONLY, *NOT* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11793
falk at debian dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Package: gcc-3.3
>
> [This is also present in gcc-3.2, and probably all 3.x versions; it is
> inapplicable for 2.95, which didn't support dynamic arrays]
Huh? It did.
> int main(void)
> {
> int foo = 0;
> int bar;
> int len = 5;
> switch(foo
Package: gcc-3.3
[This is also present in gcc-3.2, and probably all 3.x versions; it is
inapplicable for 2.95, which didn't support dynamic arrays]
int main(void)
{
int foo = 0;
int bar;
int len = 5;
switch(foo)
{
case 0:
bar = 1;
char buf[len];
}
}
[EMAIL PROTECT
On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 11:18:22 +0200, Shaul Karl wrote:
> Bad RAM after all?
It can't hurt to check up on http://www.bitwizard.nl/sig11/ .
Ray
--
UNFAIR Term applied to advantages enjoyed by other people which we tried
to cheat them out of and didn't manage. See also DISHONESTY, SNEAKY,
UND
Your message dated 02 Nov 2003 10:40:49 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#218566: Is it a bad RAM?
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 responsibi
With my 2nd attempt to make-kpkg of the same source, I got
include/asm/io.h: In function `outl_local':
include/asm/io.h:373: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault
Please submit a full bug report,
with preprocessed source if appropriate.
See http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs.html> for instr
Kenneth Pronovici writes:
> > You may have been confused by the multiple layers of bug tracking going
> > on here. The above was written by an upstream GCC maintainer, who isn't
> > necessarily running Debian.
>
> No, actually I understood that... mainly, I did not realize that I was
> supposed t
PLEASE REPLY TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ONLY, *NOT* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9077
--- Additional Comments From pronovic at debian dot org 2003-11-02 00:13
---
Created an attachment (id=5038)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=5038&action
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> reopen 172031
Bug#172031: [PR libgcj/9077] gij is unable to run some programs in the NBIO
test suite
Bug reopened, originator not changed.
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Debian bug tracking system admini
PLEASE REPLY TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ONLY, *NOT* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9077
pronovic at debian dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
PLEASE REPLY TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ONLY, *NOT* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9077
pronovic at debian dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Following the advice to make V=1 I found that the compilation line is
gcc -Wp,-MD,net/ipv4/.tcp_minisocks.o.d -nostdinc -iwithprefix include
-D__KERNEL__ -Iinclude -D__KERNEL__ -Iinclude -Wall
-Wstrict-prototypes -Wno-trigraphs -fno-strict-aliasing -fno-common
-pipe -mpreferred-stack-
25 matches
Mail list logo
