LAST_UPDATED: Thu Oct 30 22:06:32 UTC 2003
=== ACATS tests ===
FAIL: a83a02b
FAIL: a85013b
FAIL: a87b59a
FAIL: a95001c
FAIL: a95074d
FAIL: a97106a
FAIL: a99006a
FAIL: aa2010a
FAIL: ac3207a
FAIL: ad7201a
FAIL: ad7203b
FAIL: ad7205b
FAIL: ada101a
FAIL: c250002
FAI
LAST_UPDATED:
Native configuration is ia64-unknown-linux-gnu
=== g++ tests ===
Running target unix
XPASS: g++.other/init5.C Execution test
=== g++ Summary ===
# of expected passes7874
# of unexpected successes 1
# of expected failures
On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 10:40:55AM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 07:12:29AM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > But it seems to be called with autoconf:
> >
> > $ ./configure >/dev/null
> > configure: error: C++ preprocessor "/lib/cpp" fails sanity check
> > See `c
It looks like the code that is generated is actually correct, so it's
only a bogus warning. I suggest we forward it upstream.
I will create a separate gcc PR for the related problem discussed with
Andrew in private mail: gcc doesn't reject jumps into a VLA's scope.
--
Falk
On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 07:12:29AM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> [Please cc, as I'm not subscribed to debian-gcc]
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 03:43:57PM +0100, J.H.M. Dassen (Ray) wrote:
>
> > > I posted this o debian-user a few days back. I'm wondering if cpp needs
> > > to depend on g++
[Please cc, as I'm not subscribed to debian-gcc]
On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 03:43:57PM +0100, J.H.M. Dassen (Ray) wrote:
> > I posted this o debian-user a few days back. I'm wondering if cpp needs
> > to depend on g++.
>
> I see no reason to. The preprocessor typically isn't used as a stand-alone
On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 16:25:39 -0800, Bill Moseley wrote:
> [I'm not subscribed to debian-gcc]
>
> I posted this o debian-user a few days back. I'm wondering if cpp needs
> to depend on g++.
I see no reason to. The preprocessor typically isn't used as a stand-alone
application. It is typically
7 matches
Mail list logo
