[Bug target/18189] [3.3 regression] __fixunsdfdi problem on m68k

2004-10-27 Thread schwab at suse dot de
-- What|Removed |Added CC||schwab at suse dot de http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18189 --- You are receiving this mail b

[Bug target/18189] [3.3 regression] __fixunsdfdi problem on m68k

2004-10-27 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
-- What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |3.3.6 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18189 --- You are receiving this mail because: ---

Processed: gcc: submitted Debian report #278388 to gcc-gnats as PR 18189

2004-10-27 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > # submitted Debian report #278388 to gcc-gnats as PR 18189 > # http://gcc.gnu.org/PR18189 > forwarded 278388 http://gcc.gnu.org/PR18189 Bug#278388: gcc-3.3: __fixunsdfdi problem on m68k Noted your statement that Bug has been forwarded to http://gcc.gnu.

Bug#278379: Atomic stdc++ operations are broken on some MIPS machines

2004-10-27 Thread Thiemo Seufer
Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: [snip] > > At least so far, MIPS was careful to extend successor ISAs to a > > proper superset of the predecessor WRT non-privileged instructions. > > Fine by me then. Want to run this by the MIPS maintainers upstream > first? I want it to go in sarge if this is still po

Bug#278379: Atomic stdc++ operations are broken on some MIPS machines

2004-10-27 Thread Thiemo Seufer
Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: [snip] > > > IIRC, likely branches are deprecated in the latest MIPS ISAs; we > > > shouldn't be introducing more of them. I don't know what silicon bug > > > you're working around, though, so I don't know if there's a better way. > > > > R1 before revision 2.6 fail t

Bug#278549: libstdc++6-4.0-doc: bad ROFF `.so' request in 4 *stream manpages

2004-10-27 Thread Laurent Bonnaud
Package: libstdc++6-4.0-doc Version: 4.0-0pre0 Severity: normal Tags: experimental Hi, here is the problem: mandb: warning: /usr/share/man/man3/std::ofstream.3.gz: bad symlink or ROFF `.so' request mandb: can't open /usr/share/man/man3/std::basic_ofstream.3: No such file or directory mandb: w

Bug#278379: Atomic stdc++ operations are broken on some MIPS machines

2004-10-27 Thread Daniel Jacobowitz
On Wed, Oct 27, 2004 at 07:45:40PM +0200, Thiemo Seufer wrote: > Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > [snip] > > > > IIRC, likely branches are deprecated in the latest MIPS ISAs; we > > > > shouldn't be introducing more of them. I don't know what silicon bug > > > > you're working around, though, so I don't

Bug#278548: gfortran-4.0: 2 dangling symlinks instead of manpages

2004-10-27 Thread Laurent Bonnaud
Package: gfortran-4.0 Version: 4.0-0pre0 Severity: normal Tags: experimental Hi, here are the 2 dangling symlinks: mandb: warning: /usr/share/man/man1/i386-linux-g95-4.0.1 is a dangling symlink mandb: warning: /usr/share/man/man1/i486-linux-g95-4.0.1 is a dangling symlink They point to "g95-4.

Bug#278379: Atomic stdc++ operations are broken on some MIPS machines

2004-10-27 Thread Daniel Jacobowitz
On Wed, Oct 27, 2004 at 07:09:49PM +0200, Thiemo Seufer wrote: > Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > [snip] > > > The appended patch fixes it. It also changes the branch to the likely > > > variant, this works around some breakage in early R1 silicon. > > > The patch is against gcc-3.3, newer gccs have

Bug#278379: Atomic stdc++ operations are broken on some MIPS machines

2004-10-27 Thread Thiemo Seufer
Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: [snip] > > The appended patch fixes it. It also changes the branch to the likely > > variant, this works around some breakage in early R1 silicon. > > The patch is against gcc-3.3, newer gccs have the same problem, but > > have some apparently bogus changes in that area

Bug#278379: Atomic stdc++ operations are broken on some MIPS machines

2004-10-27 Thread Daniel Jacobowitz
On Tue, Oct 26, 2004 at 04:09:15PM +0200, Thiemo Seufer wrote: > Package: gcc-3.3 > Version: 3.3.5-1 > Severity: important > > While trying to run Debian on a SGI O200 Machine I found out that the > inline assembly to handle atomic operations in libstdc++ is broken. > The effect is very visible: "