--- Comment #28 from jason at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-10-03 23:54 ---
Changing the testcase to use decltype instead of typeof produces this error
with current sources:
wa.C:2: sorry, unimplemented: zero-operand casts cannot be mangled due to a
defect in the C++ ABI
Now that we have de
Accepted:
gdc-4.1_0.24-4.1.2-16d1.diff.gz
to pool/main/g/gdc-4.1/gdc-4.1_0.24-4.1.2-16d1.diff.gz
gdc-4.1_0.24-4.1.2-16d1.dsc
to pool/main/g/gdc-4.1/gdc-4.1_0.24-4.1.2-16d1.dsc
gdc-4.1_0.24-4.1.2-16d1_amd64.deb
to pool/main/g/gdc-4.1/gdc-4.1_0.24-4.1.2-16d1_amd64.deb
gdc-4.1_0.24-4.1.2-16d1_i
gdc-4.1_0.24-4.1.2-16d1_multi.changes uploaded successfully to localhost
along with the files:
gdc-4.1_0.24-4.1.2-16d1.dsc
gdc-4.1_0.24-4.1.2-16d1.diff.gz
gdc-4.1_0.24-4.1.2-16d1_i386.deb
gdc-4.1_0.24-4.1.2-16d1_amd64.deb
gdc-4.1_0.24-4.1.2-16d1_powerpc.deb
Greetings,
Your Debia
Rejected: Unknown architecture 'kfreebsd-amd64'.
===
If you don't understand why your files were rejected, or if the
override file requires editing, reply to this email.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
gdc-4.1_0.24-4.1.2-16d1_multi.changes uploaded successfully to localhost
along with the files:
gdc-4.1_0.24-4.1.2-16d1.dsc
gdc-4.1_0.24-4.1.2-16d1.diff.gz
gdc-4.1_0.24-4.1.2-16d1_i386.deb
gdc-4.1_0.24-4.1.2-16d1_amd64.deb
gdc-4.1_0.24-4.1.2-16d1_kfreebsd-amd64.deb
gdc-4.1_0.24-4.1.2-16d
#
# bts-link upstream status pull for source package gdc-4.1
# see http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2006/05/msg1.html
#
user [EMAIL PROTECTED]
# remote status report for #443744
# *
http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=791252&aid=1800931&group_id=154306
# * remote
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> #
> # bts-link upstream status pull for source package gdc-4.1
> # see http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2006/05/msg1.html
> #
> user [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Setting user to [EMAIL PROTECTED] (was [EMAIL PROTECTED]).
> # remote status report f
Package: linux-2.6
Version: -
Tags: patch
Hector Oron wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I am trying to build a gcc cross compiler package for i386->m68k but
> i get this error:
> ../../../src/libffi/src/m68k/ffi.c:13:26: error: asm/cachectl.h: No
> such file or directory
>
> Do you know where should be
On Wed, Oct 03, 2007 at 08:06:02PM +0200, ext Hector Oron wrote:
> So, i understand that linux-libc-dev package is wrong.
Yeah... looks like...
there's no cachectl.h...
but maybe this came from newer kernel releases ??
Gotta check that to guarantee, though.
>
>
> 2007/10/3, Felipe Balbi <[EMA
On Wed, Oct 03, 2007 at 07:24:32PM +0200, ext Hector Oron wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I am trying to build a gcc cross compiler package for i386->m68k but
> i get this error:
> ../../../src/libffi/src/m68k/ffi.c:13:26: error: asm/cachectl.h: No
> such file or directory
>
> Do you know where should
So, i understand that linux-libc-dev package is wrong.
2007/10/3, Felipe Balbi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Wed, Oct 03, 2007 at 07:24:32PM +0200, ext Hector Oron wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > I am trying to build a gcc cross compiler package for i386->m68k but
> > i get this error:
> > ../../../src
Hello,
I am trying to build a gcc cross compiler package for i386->m68k but
i get this error:
../../../src/libffi/src/m68k/ffi.c:13:26: error: asm/cachectl.h: No
such file or directory
Do you know where should be cachectl.h? As it is not in kernel headers.
Or is it a bug on GCC code (ffi.
Hi Maintainer,
rejected:
lintian check for libphobos2-4.1-dev_0.25-4.1.2-16d1exp1_amd64.deb
E: libphobos2-4.1-dev: no-copyright-file
linda check for libphobos2-4.1-dev_0.25-4.1.2-16d1exp1_amd64.deb
E: libphobos2-4.1-dev; Package does not contain a copyright file.
E: libphobos2-4.1-dev
Your message dated Wed, 03 Oct 2007 15:40:32 +
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#247112: fixed in gcc-4.2 4.2.1-6
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
Your message dated Wed, 03 Oct 2007 15:40:33 +
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#380482: fixed in gcc-4.2 4.2.1-6
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
Your message dated Wed, 03 Oct 2007 15:40:32 +
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#307207: fixed in gcc-4.2 4.2.1-6
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
Your message dated Wed, 03 Oct 2007 15:40:34 +
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#440545: fixed in gcc-4.2 4.2.1-6
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
Your message dated Wed, 03 Oct 2007 15:40:34 +
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#443576: fixed in gcc-4.2 4.2.1-6
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
Your message dated Wed, 03 Oct 2007 15:40:32 +
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#188943: fixed in gcc-4.2 4.2.1-6
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
Your message dated Wed, 03 Oct 2007 15:40:34 +
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#443576: fixed in gcc-4.2 4.2.1-6
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
Your message dated Wed, 03 Oct 2007 15:40:32 +
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#278310: fixed in gcc-4.2 4.2.1-6
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
Your message dated Wed, 03 Oct 2007 15:40:33 +
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#430049: fixed in gcc-4.2 4.2.1-6
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
Your message dated Wed, 03 Oct 2007 15:40:33 +
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#387222: fixed in gcc-4.2 4.2.1-6
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
Your message dated Wed, 03 Oct 2007 15:40:32 +
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#380121: fixed in gcc-4.2 4.2.1-6
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
Your message dated Wed, 03 Oct 2007 15:40:33 +
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#397671: fixed in gcc-4.2 4.2.1-6
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
Your message dated Wed, 03 Oct 2007 15:40:34 +
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#443929: fixed in gcc-4.2 4.2.1-6
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
Your message dated Wed, 03 Oct 2007 15:40:32 +
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#178561: fixed in gcc-4.2 4.2.1-6
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
Your message dated Wed, 03 Oct 2007 15:40:33 +
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#396292: fixed in gcc-4.2 4.2.1-6
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
Your message dated Wed, 03 Oct 2007 15:40:34 +
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#440545: fixed in gcc-4.2 4.2.1-6
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
Your message dated Wed, 03 Oct 2007 15:40:32 +
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#269513: fixed in gcc-4.2 4.2.1-6
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
Your message dated Wed, 03 Oct 2007 15:41:27 +
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#443929: fixed in gcc-4.3 4.3-20070930-1
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
Your message dated Wed, 03 Oct 2007 15:40:32 +
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#324600: fixed in gcc-4.2 4.2.1-6
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
Your message dated Wed, 03 Oct 2007 15:40:33 +
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#382153: fixed in gcc-4.2 4.2.1-6
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
Your message dated Wed, 03 Oct 2007 15:40:34 +
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#441481: fixed in gcc-4.2 4.2.1-6
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
Your message dated Wed, 03 Oct 2007 15:40:33 +
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#423547: fixed in gcc-4.2 4.2.1-6
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
Your message dated Wed, 03 Oct 2007 15:40:32 +
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#358235: fixed in gcc-4.2 4.2.1-6
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
Accepted:
cpp-4.2-doc_4.2.1-6_all.deb
to pool/main/g/gcc-4.2/cpp-4.2-doc_4.2.1-6_all.deb
cpp-4.2_4.2.1-6_amd64.deb
to pool/main/g/gcc-4.2/cpp-4.2_4.2.1-6_amd64.deb
cpp-4.2_4.2.1-6_hppa.deb
to pool/main/g/gcc-4.2/cpp-4.2_4.2.1-6_hppa.deb
cpp-4.2_4.2.1-6_powerpc.deb
to pool/main/g/gcc-4.2/cp
Accepted:
cpp-4.3-doc_4.3-20070930-1_all.deb
to pool/main/g/gcc-4.3/cpp-4.3-doc_4.3-20070930-1_all.deb
cpp-4.3_4.3-20070930-1_amd64.deb
to pool/main/g/gcc-4.3/cpp-4.3_4.3-20070930-1_amd64.deb
cpp-4.3_4.3-20070930-1_hppa.deb
to pool/main/g/gcc-4.3/cpp-4.3_4.3-20070930-1_hppa.deb
cpp-4.3_4.3-2
Nikita V. Youshchenko writes:
> > > Currently, gcc-4.2-doc *is* in main. Does this mean that FDL paranoia
> > > has gone to past, or gcc-4.2-doc is in main just in error - I don't
> > > know. But depending on this, either non-free and contrib packages
> > > should be updated, or gcc-doc should be p
> > Currently, gcc-4.2-doc *is* in main. Does this mean that FDL paranoia
> > has gone to past, or gcc-4.2-doc is in main just in error - I don't
> > know. But depending on this, either non-free and contrib packages
> > should be updated, or gcc-doc should be provided by gcc-defaults (as
> > it was
40 matches
Mail list logo
