Processed: tag gcc-2.95 report

Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: tags 339703 + pending Bug#339703: gcc-2.95: ftbfs [sparc] 1 out of 1 hunk FAILED -- saving rejects to file include/obstack.h.r There were no tags set. Tags added: pending thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance.

[Bug fortran/24285] format(1000(a,$))

--- Comment #2 from agalakhov at ifmlrs dot uran dot ru 2005-11-18 10:19 --- Exactly the same bug has been fixed about a year ago in g95. You may want to borrow some of its code. -- agalakhov at ifmlrs dot uran dot ru changed: What|Removed |Added

Bug#333250: marked as done (libboost-dev: g++-4.0 does not like boost::iostreams::filtering_istream)

Your message dated Fri, 18 Nov 2005 16:17:40 +0100 with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED] and subject line libboost-dev: g++-4.0 does not like boost::iostreams::filtering_istream has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.

Bug#334942: marked as done (gcc-4.0-base: Large local arrays in function lead to segmentation fault)

Your message dated Fri, 18 Nov 2005 16:14:11 +0100 with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED] and subject line gcc-4.0-base: Large local arrays in function lead to segmentation fault has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.

Bug#339703: marked as done (gcc-2.95: ftbfs [sparc] 1 out of 1 hunk FAILED -- saving rejects to file include/obstack.h.r)

Your message dated Fri, 18 Nov 2005 07:47:08 -0800 with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED] and subject line Bug#339703: fixed in gcc-2.95 2.95.4.ds15-24 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

[Bug fortran/24285] format(1000(a,$))

--- Comment #3 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-18 17:44 --- (In reply to comment #2) Exactly the same bug has been fixed about a year ago in g95. You may want to borrow some of its code. gfortran and g95 have diverged to the point that code in g95 is irrelevant. You, of

Results for 3.4.5 20051112 (prerelease) (Debian 3.4.4-10) testsuite on arm-unknown-linux-gnu

LAST_UPDATED: Sat Nov 12 13:57:02 UTC 2005 (revision 106823) Native configuration is arm-unknown-linux-gnu === libstdc++ tests === Running target unix WARNING: program timed out. XPASS: 26_numerics/c99_classification_macros_c.cc (test for excess errors) ===

[Bug rtl-optimization/23837] [4.0/4.1 regression] Wrong code with -fschedule-insns

--- Comment #14 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-19 01:28 --- This also effects hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.11 which means this effects a primary target. -- pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug target/24850] [4.1 regression] bootstrap failure on m68k-linux

--- Comment #1 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-19 02:15 --- 68k is not a primary/secondary platform, but bootstrap failures are obviously bad. Let's fix this if we can. -- mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added

g++/stl -frepo problem? (was: library renaming due to changed libstdc++ configuration)

I wrote earlier I've noticed that with recent updates, I'm suddenly getting tons of undefined function errors resulting from STL-related template instantiation. [I've attached an example at the end of this message.] Er, any comments on this? It's driving me nuts that I now can't compile my