Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
retitle 369642 g++-4.0/alpha: -fvisibility-inlines-hidden segfaults on
reference to static method
thanks
Minimal test case attached, bug title updated accordingly. Build with g++
-c -fvisibility-inlines-hidden on alpha to see the fun.
Maybe
Hire,
i am here sitting in the internet caffe. Found your email and
adecaided to write. I might be coming to your aplace in !14 days,
so I decided to email you. May be wea can meet? Ia am 25 y.o.
girl. I have a picture ifa you want. No need to reply here as
this is not m!y email. Write me at
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
forwarded 369606 http://gcc.gnu.org/PR27830
Bug#369606: ICE: verify_stmts failed
Noted your statement that Bug has been forwarded to http://gcc.gnu.org/PR27830.
tags 369606 + upstream
Bug#369606: ICE: verify_stmts failed
There were no tags set.
Tags
On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 05:52:43PM +0200, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
I tried it on akire, but was interrupted by real world issues.
When you could give a more detailed HowTo (sbuild, dpkg-buildpackage,
whatever) I would retry...
Very easy:
dget
On Wed, May 31, 2006 at 08:39:19AM +0200, Falk Hueffner wrote:
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
retitle 369642 g++-4.0/alpha: -fvisibility-inlines-hidden segfaults on
reference to static method
thanks
Minimal test case attached, bug title updated accordingly. Build with g++
Your message dated Tue, 30 May 2006 16:47:41 -0700
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Accepted gcc-snapshot 20060530-1 (source i386 amd64 powerpc)
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
Your message dated Tue, 30 May 2006 16:47:41 -0700
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Accepted gcc-snapshot 20060530-1 (source i386 amd64 powerpc)
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
Your message dated Tue, 30 May 2006 16:47:41 -0700
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Accepted gcc-snapshot 20060530-1 (source i386 amd64 powerpc)
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
Your message dated Tue, 30 May 2006 16:47:41 -0700
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Accepted gcc-snapshot 20060530-1 (source i386 amd64 powerpc)
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
Your message dated Tue, 30 May 2006 16:47:41 -0700
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Accepted gcc-snapshot 20060530-1 (source i386 amd64 powerpc)
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
Your message dated Tue, 30 May 2006 16:47:41 -0700
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Accepted gcc-snapshot 20060530-1 (source i386 amd64 powerpc)
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
Your message dated Tue, 30 May 2006 16:47:41 -0700
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Accepted gcc-snapshot 20060530-1 (source i386 amd64 powerpc)
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
Your message dated Tue, 30 May 2006 16:47:41 -0700
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Accepted gcc-snapshot 20060530-1 (source i386 amd64 powerpc)
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
Your message dated Tue, 30 May 2006 16:47:41 -0700
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Accepted gcc-snapshot 20060530-1 (source i386 amd64 powerpc)
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
[You had removed m68k-build from the Cc list. Was that on purpose?]
On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 02:01:19PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
BTW, can you tell me anything about the dip in
http://buildd.debian.org/stats/graph2-quarter-big.png for m68k? Seems to be
heading in the wrong direction again
Package: gcc-4.1
Version: 4.1.0-4
Severity: important
Tags: patch
Hi,
this is the failure:
|patching file gcc/ada/adaint.c
|Hunk #1 FAILED at 261.
|1 out of 1 hunk FAILED -- saving rejects to file gcc/ada/adaint.c.rej
this is the second one:
|/build/buildd/gcc-4.1-4.1.0/build/./gcc/xgcc
On Wed, May 31, 2006 at 02:35:47PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
[You had removed m68k-build from the Cc list. Was that on purpose?]
On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 02:01:19PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
BTW, can you tell me anything about the dip in
On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 02:01:19PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
BTW, can you tell me anything about the dip in
http://buildd.debian.org/stats/graph2-quarter-big.png for m68k? Seems to be
heading in the wrong direction again for being a release candidate. I see
12 buildds actively
Since m68k pretty much depends on the gcc-4.1 transition to make it in
again, I would suggest that we (as in, the m68k port) make the switch to
GCC4.1 as the default already. This will allow us to verify that stuff
actually builds and works, and to catch up with building those that fail
with
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
forwarded 369710 http://gcc.gnu.org/PR27804
Bug#369710: ICE: tree check: expected class 'type', have 'exceptional'
(error_mark) in ocp_convert, at cp/cvt.c:630
Noted your statement that Bug has been forwarded to http://gcc.gnu.org/PR27804.
tags
Please replace the previous patch with this patch against 4.1.0-4.
More explanation may be needed for Pascal.
[Ludovic Brenta]
* debian/copyright: Mention Ada packages (Closes: #366744).
Reorganise the explanation on the various packages. Explain
biarch. List all binary packages
Package: gcc-snapshot
Version: 20060508-1
Forwarded as PR27841.
Automatic build of r-base_2.3.0-1 on test.track.rz.uni-augsburg.de by
sbuild/powerpc 0.44
...
gcc -I. -I../../src/include -I../../src/include -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -fpic
-std=gnu99 -O2 -pipe -c complex.c -o complex.o
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
forwarded 369719 http://gcc.gnu.org/PR27841
Bug#369719: ICE: tree check: expected ssa_name, have symbol_memory_tag in
verify_ssa, at tree-ssa.c:776
Noted your statement that Bug has been forwarded to http://gcc.gnu.org/PR27841.
tags 369719 + upstream
#
# bts-link upstream status pull for source package gcc-snapshot
# see http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2006/05/msg1.html
#
user [EMAIL PROTECTED]
# remote status report for #369606
# * http://gcc.gnu.org/PR27830
# * remote status changed: (?) - NEW
usertags 369606 +
24 matches
Mail list logo
