[Bug rtl-optimization/29329] [4.1 regression] internal consistency failure

--- Comment #5 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-02 07:44 --- The combiner drops a REG_DEAD note without updating liveness info. -- ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added

Re: gcj/java status

On Wed, Nov 01, 2006 at 09:53:37AM +, Andrew Haley wrote: Going back to gcj-4.0 for arm could be an alternative, at least simple programs did compile to native code and run sucessfully. The testsuite in 4.0 shows over 100 test failures, in 4.1 over 700. Reverting back to 4.0

Re: gcj/java status

Andrew Haley writes: Steve Langasek writes: On Mon, Oct 23, 2006 at 01:18:35AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote: Please consider moving the following packages to testing: - arm: debian only port, not yet submitted to upstream; runtime is currently non-functional, testsuite shows

Bug#396583: libgcj-common: Link to gcj-4.1-base makes checksums mismatch

reassign 396583 debsums thanks Marc-Jano Knopp writes: Package: libgcj-common Version: 1:4.1.1-19 Severity: minor libgcj-common installs a symlink from /usr/share/doc/libgcj-common to /usr/share/doc/gcj-4.1-base, which makes checksums mismatch: # aptitude reinstall libgcj-common

Processed: Re: Bug#396583: libgcj-common: Link to gcj-4.1-base makes checksums mismatch

Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: reassign 396583 debsums Bug#396583: libgcj-common: Link to gcj-4.1-base makes checksums mismatch Bug reassigned from package `libgcj-common' to `debsums'. thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. Debian bug tracking

Re: gcj/java status

Steve Langasek writes: so in the absence of any movement in this area, I still need to know what Debian is going to do with gcj on ARM for the upcoming etch release. in the worst case, remove the binaries built from gcj-4.1, ecj-bootstrap-gcj. How many build-dependencies will be broken?

Re: gcj/java status

Steve Langasek writes: On Mon, Oct 23, 2006 at 01:18:35AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote: Please consider moving the following packages to testing: gcj-4.1 I'm wondering whether the build-dependencies of gcj-4.1 are really accurate. Is it really the case that gcj-4.1 will build

Re: gcc-4.1 status in unstable

Steve Langasek writes: Hi Matthias, On Sun, Oct 29, 2006 at 02:20:39PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote: gcc-4.1 4.1.1-19 in unstable now looks like not showing build time regressions compared to 4.1.1-13 in testing, validated on amd64. Lucas Nussbaum volunteered to build testing from

Re: Bug#396583: libgcj-common: Link to gcj-4.1-base makes checksums mismatch

On Wed, Nov 01, 2006 at 06:10:57PM +0100, Marc-Jano Knopp wrote: libgcj-common installs a symlink from /usr/share/doc/libgcj-common to /usr/share/doc/gcj-4.1-base, which makes checksums mismatch: Looking at the current packages, it doesn't appear that either libgcj-common or gcj-4.1-base includes

Processed: new version

Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: found 392735 1.0.65-8 Bug#392735: java-gcj-compat: dangling symlinks in /usr/lib/jvm/java-1.4.2-gcj-4.1-1.4.2.0/man/man1 Bug marked as found in version 1.0.65-8. -- Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. Debian bug

[Bug target/27891] [4.0/4.1 regression] ICE in tree_split_edge, at tree-cfg.c:3107

--- Comment #7 from rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-02 19:18 --- Subject: Bug 27891 Author: rakdver Date: Thu Nov 2 19:18:25 2006 New Revision: 118423 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=118423 Log: PR tree-optimization/27891 *

[Bug target/27891] [4.0/4.1 regression] ICE in tree_split_edge, at tree-cfg.c:3107

--- Comment #8 from rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-02 20:57 --- Subject: Bug 27891 Author: rakdver Date: Thu Nov 2 20:57:35 2006 New Revision: 118430 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=118430 Log: PR tree-optimization/27891 *

Re: Bug#383251: g++-4.1: FTBFS for RQuantLib on i386/testing

On Saturday 19 August 2006 07:03, Matthias Klose wrote: Dirk Eddelbuettel writes: On 18 August 2006 at 00:58, Martin Michlmayr wrote: | * John Schmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-08-17 13:46]: | Is there a way for me to instrument my code/system, etc to indicate | where the big time sink

Processing of gcc-4.1_4.1.1ds2-19_hurd-i386.changes

gcc-4.1_4.1.1ds2-19_hurd-i386.changes uploaded successfully to localhost along with the files: gcc-4.1-base_4.1.1-19_hurd-i386.deb libgcc1_4.1.1-19_hurd-i386.deb cpp-4.1_4.1.1-19_hurd-i386.deb protoize_4.1.1-19_hurd-i386.deb fixincludes_4.1.1-19_hurd-i386.deb

gcc-4.1_4.1.1ds2-19_hurd-i386.changes ACCEPTED

Accepted: cpp-4.1_4.1.1-19_hurd-i386.deb to pool/main/g/gcc-4.1/cpp-4.1_4.1.1-19_hurd-i386.deb fastjar_4.1.1-19_hurd-i386.deb to pool/main/g/gcc-4.1/fastjar_4.1.1-19_hurd-i386.deb fixincludes_4.1.1-19_hurd-i386.deb to pool/main/g/gcc-4.1/fixincludes_4.1.1-19_hurd-i386.deb

Re: gcj/java status

On Thu, Nov 02, 2006 at 01:11:24PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote: Steve Langasek writes: so in the absence of any movement in this area, I still need to know what Debian is going to do with gcj on ARM for the upcoming etch release. in the worst case, remove the binaries built from gcj-4.1,

Re: gcj/java status

On Thu, Nov 02, 2006 at 01:23:17PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote: Steve Langasek writes: On Mon, Oct 23, 2006 at 01:18:35AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote: Please consider moving the following packages to testing: gcj-4.1 I'm wondering whether the build-dependencies of gcj-4.1 are really

Re: gcj/java status

Steve Langasek writes: On Thu, Nov 02, 2006 at 01:23:17PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote: Steve Langasek writes: On Mon, Oct 23, 2006 at 01:18:35AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote: Please consider moving the following packages to testing: gcj-4.1 I'm wondering whether the

Re: gcj/java status

On Fri, Nov 03, 2006 at 07:37:33AM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote: no, only the upstream tarball is used from gcc-4.1-source. the patches are used from the gcj-4.1 source. The patches in gcc-4.1-source are needed to build cross compilers, based on gcc-4.1-source. My point was that the