Processed: found 372152 in 4.1.1-3

Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > # Automatically generated email from bts, devscripts version 2.9.20 > found 372152 4.1.1-3 Bug#372152: g++-4.1: PR27935 appears to be unresolved (operator delete(void*, size_t) issue) Bug#372559: gecode: FTBFS with g++-4.1: no suitable operator Bug#372

Bug#373143: errors when installing gpc-2.1-4.1-doc

Package: gpc-2.1-4.1-doc Version: 4.1.1-3 Severity: normal When installing, I get the following error: Setting up gpc-2.1-4.1-doc (4.1.1-3) ... warning: file `/usr/share/info/gpc-2.1-4.1.info.gz' does not exist at /usr/sbin/install-docs line 718, line 15. warning: file mask `/usr/share/info/g

Results for 4.1.2 20060608 (prerelease) (Debian 4.1.1-3) testsuite on hppa-linux-gnu

LAST_UPDATED: Thu Jun 8 09:26:53 UTC 2006 (revision 114484) Native configuration is hppa-linux-gnu (pampa) === gpc tests === Running target any FAIL: fjf322.pas FAIL: fjf395a.pas FAIL: fjf395b.pas FAIL: fjf403b.pas FAIL: fjf563e.pas FAIL: fjf587b.pas FAIL: fjf779a.pas FAIL: fjf

Results for 4.1.2 20060608 (prerelease) (Debian 4.1.1-3) testsuite on powerpc-unknown-linux-gnu

LAST_UPDATED: Thu Jun 8 09:26:53 UTC 2006 (revision 114484) === acats tests === === acats Summary === # of expected passes2317 # of unexpected failures0 Native configuration is powerpc-unknown-linux-gnu === g++ tests === Runn

Results for 3.4.6 (Debian 3.4.6-2) testsuite on sparc-linux-gnu

LAST_UPDATED: Obtained from SVN: tags/gcc_3_4_6_release revision 111785 Native configuration is sparc-linux-gnu (mrpurply) === gpc tests === Running target any FAIL: fjf980a.pas FAIL: fjf980b.pas FAIL: fjf998r.pas === gpc Summary === # of tests5

Results for 4.1.2 20060604 (prerelease) (Debian 4.1.1-2) testsuite on m68k-unknown-linux-gnu

LAST_UPDATED: Sun Jun 4 18:50:03 UTC 2006 (revision 114362) Native configuration is m68k-unknown-linux-gnu === g++ tests === Running target unix FAIL: g++.dg/eh/omit-frame-pointer2.C execution test FAIL: g++.dg/eh/registers1.C execution test FAIL: g++.dg/ext/visibility/noPLT.C

Results for 3.4.6 (Debian 3.4.6-2) testsuite on ia64-linux-gnu

LAST_UPDATED: Obtained from SVN: tags/gcc_3_4_6_release revision 111785 Native configuration is ia64-linux-gnu (caballero) === gpc tests === Running target any FAIL: chief40.pas FAIL: chuck6.pas FAIL: fieldw.pas FAIL: fjf23.pas FAIL: fjf30b.pas FAIL: fjf327.pas FAIL: fjf526a.pas

Results for 3.4.6 (Debian 3.4.6-2) testsuite on s390-linux-gnu

LAST_UPDATED: Obtained from SVN: tags/gcc_3_4_6_release revision 111785 Native configuration is s390-linux-gnu (debian-31) === gpc tests === Running target any FAIL: fjf998r.pas === gpc Summary === # of tests5057 # of expected passes 5053 #

Results for 3.4.6 (Debian 3.4.6-2) testsuite on powerpc-linux-gnu

LAST_UPDATED: Obtained from SVN: tags/gcc_3_4_6_release revision 111785 Native configuration is powerpc-linux-gnu (doko) === gpc tests === Running target any FAIL: fjf998r.pas FAIL: prep2p.pas === gpc Summary === # of tests5057 # of expected pas

Results for 3.4.6 (Debian 3.4.6-2) testsuite on i486-linux-gnu

LAST_UPDATED: Obtained from SVN: tags/gcc_3_4_6_release revision 111785 Native configuration is i486-linux-gnu (gargleblaster) === gpc tests === Running target any FAIL: fjf998r.pas === gpc Summary === # of tests5057 # of expected passes 50

Results for 3.4.6 (Debian 3.4.6-2) testsuite on hppa-linux-gnu

LAST_UPDATED: Obtained from SVN: tags/gcc_3_4_6_release revision 111785 Native configuration is hppa-linux-gnu (pampa) === gpc tests === Running target any FAIL: avo2a.pas FAIL: avo2b.pas === gpc Summary === # of tests5057 # of expected passes

Results for 3.4.6 (Debian 3.4.6-2) testsuite on x86_64-linux-gnu

LAST_UPDATED: Obtained from SVN: tags/gcc_3_4_6_release revision 111785 Native configuration is x86_64-linux-gnu (excelsior) === gpc tests === Running target any FAIL: chief40.pas FAIL: chuck6.pas FAIL: fieldw.pas FAIL: fjf23.pas FAIL: fjf30b.pas FAIL: fjf327.pas FAIL: fjf526a.p

Results for 3.4.6 (Debian 3.4.6-2) testsuite on alpha-unknown-linux-gnu

LAST_UPDATED: Obtained from SVN: tags/gcc_3_4_6_release revision 111785 Native configuration is alpha-unknown-linux-gnu === libstdc++ tests === Running target unix FAIL: abi_check XPASS: 22_locale/locale/cons/12658_thread.cc execution test XPASS: 26_numerics/c99_classification_m

Bug#372913: marked as done (gcc-4.1: datatype limits / signedness differs with optimization levels)

Your message dated Mon, 12 Jun 2006 23:31:45 +0200 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line closing it 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 reope

Processed: severity of 372913 is minor

Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > # Automatically generated email from bts, devscripts version 2.9.19 > severity 372913 minor Bug#372913: gcc-4.1: datatype limits / signedness differs with optimization levels Severity set to `minor' from `critical' > End of message, stopping processin

Bug#373098: gcc-2.95: f77 FTBFS on alpha (work-around provided)

Package: gcc-2.95 Version: 2.95.4.ds15-25 Severity: serious Tags: patch Hello GCC maintainers, gcc-2.95 FTBFS on alpha as seen here: While investigating, I found a simple work-around

Processed: reopen #372152, not fixed

Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > reopen 372152 Bug#372152: g++-4.1: PR27935 appears to be unresolved (operator delete(void*, size_t) issue) 'reopen' is deprecated when a bug has been closed with a version; use 'found' or 'submitter' as appropriate instead. Bug#372559: gecode: FTBFS wi

Bug#372705: marked as done (kdelibs: FTBFS: no suitable 'operator delete')

Your message dated Mon, 12 Jun 2006 10:32:37 -0700 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#372152: fixed in gcc-4.1 4.1.1-3 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 yo

Bug#370649: marked as done (gcc-4.1: cross-configure.dpatch failed on DEB_CROSS)

Your message dated Mon, 12 Jun 2006 10:32:37 -0700 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#370649: fixed in gcc-4.1 4.1.1-3 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 yo

Bug#372152: marked as done (g++-4.1: PR27935 appears to be unresolved (operator delete(void*, size_t) issue))

Your message dated Mon, 12 Jun 2006 10:32:37 -0700 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#372152: fixed in gcc-4.1 4.1.1-3 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 yo

Bug#370661: marked as done (gcj-4.1: FTBFS on GNU/kFreeBSD)

Your message dated Mon, 12 Jun 2006 10:32:37 -0700 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#370661: fixed in gcc-4.1 4.1.1-3 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 yo

Bug#372705: marked as done (kdelibs: FTBFS: no suitable 'operator delete')

Your message dated Mon, 12 Jun 2006 10:32:37 -0700 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#372559: fixed in gcc-4.1 4.1.1-3 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 yo

Bug#372605: marked as done (FTBFS: parse.y: conflicts: 62 shift/reduce, 25 reduce/reduce)

Your message dated Mon, 12 Jun 2006 10:32:37 -0700 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#372605: fixed in gcc-4.1 4.1.1-3 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 yo

Bug#372559: marked as done (gecode: FTBFS with g++-4.1: no suitable operator)

Your message dated Mon, 12 Jun 2006 10:32:37 -0700 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#372152: fixed in gcc-4.1 4.1.1-3 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 yo

Bug#372559: marked as done (gecode: FTBFS with g++-4.1: no suitable operator)

Your message dated Mon, 12 Jun 2006 10:32:37 -0700 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#372559: fixed in gcc-4.1 4.1.1-3 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 yo

Bug#372152: marked as done (g++-4.1: PR27935 appears to be unresolved (operator delete(void*, size_t) issue))

Your message dated Mon, 12 Jun 2006 10:32:37 -0700 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#372559: fixed in gcc-4.1 4.1.1-3 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 yo

Bug#372913: gcc-4.1: datatype limits / signedness differs with optimization levels

Erik Meusel wrote: > Am Montag, 12. Juni 2006 18:24 schrieb Bastian Blank: > > char is neither signed nor unsigned. Only unsigned have defined overflow > > behaviour. > > > > > } while (c != '\0'); > > > > > > return 0; > > > } > > Alright, but why does this work differently using

gcc-4.1_4.1.1-3_multi.changes ACCEPTED

Accepted: cpp-4.1-doc_4.1.1-3_all.deb to pool/main/g/gcc-4.1/cpp-4.1-doc_4.1.1-3_all.deb cpp-4.1_4.1.1-3_hppa.deb to pool/main/g/gcc-4.1/cpp-4.1_4.1.1-3_hppa.deb cpp-4.1_4.1.1-3_i386.deb to pool/main/g/gcc-4.1/cpp-4.1_4.1.1-3_i386.deb cpp-4.1_4.1.1-3_powerpc.deb to pool/main/g/gcc-4.1/cpp-

gcc-4.1 override disparity

There are disparities between your recently accepted upload and the override file for the following file(s): gcc-4.1-base_4.1.1-3_hppa.deb: package says section is libs, override says devel. gcc-4.1-base_4.1.1-3_i386.deb: package says section is libs, override says devel. gcc-4.1-base_4.1.1-3_po

Processing of gcc-4.1_4.1.1-3_multi.changes

gcc-4.1_4.1.1-3_multi.changes uploaded successfully to localhost along with the files: libssp0-dev_4.1.1-3_i386.deb lib64ssp0_4.1.1-3_i386.deb gcc-4.1-locales_4.1.1-3_all.deb lib64ssp0_4.1.1-3_powerpc.deb gpc-2.1-4.1_4.1.1-3_hppa.deb gcc-4.1_4.1.1-3_powerpc.deb gobjc-4.1_4.1.1-3_power

Bug#372913: gcc-4.1: datatype limits / signedness differs with optimization levels

On Mon, Jun 12, 2006 at 03:01:39PM +0200, Erik Meusel wrote: > Use this little example to see what's happening: > > #include > > int main(void) { > char c = '\0'; > > do { > printf("%d\n", c); %d is for int, not char: UB. > c++; char is neither

Bug#372913: gcc-4.1: datatype limits / signedness differs with optimization levels

On Mon, Jun 12, 2006 at 06:39:27PM +0200, Erik Meusel wrote: > Alright, but why does this work differently using different versions of gcc > or > different optimization levels? That is the meaning of undefined behaviour. You can't predict anything. Therefor gcc is free to remove tests if it does

Bug#372913: gcc-4.1: datatype limits / signedness differs with optimization levels

Am Montag, 12. Juni 2006 18:24 schrieb Bastian Blank: > char is neither signed nor unsigned. Only unsigned have defined overflow > behaviour. > > > } while (c != '\0'); > > > > return 0; > > } Alright, but why does this work differently using different versions of gcc or different

Bug#372913: assembler output...

I made a diff of the assembler code with -O0 and -O2: 1 --- test_O0 2006-06-12 15:30:56.0 +0200 2 +++ test_O2 2006-06-12 15:30:49.0 +0200 3 @@ -1,5 +1,6 @@ 4 .file "test.c" 5 .text 6 + .p2align 4,,15 7 .glob

Bug#372913: gcc-4.1: datatype limits / signedness differs with optimization levels

Package: gcc-4.1 Version: 4.1.1-2 Severity: critical Justification: breaks unrelated software Use this little example to see what's happening: #include int main(void) { char c = '\0'; do { printf("%d\n", c); c++; } while (c != '\0');