Matthias Klose wrote:
> please consider gcc-4.1 (4.1.2-24) for testing. all changes except the update
> on
> the gcc-4_1-branch do not affect Debian unstable. the --with-tune=generic
> change
> wasn't really necessary, it was already the default. no regressions seen in
> the
> gcc testsuite.
un
LAST_UPDATED: Wed Jan 7 22:55:40 UTC 2009 (revision 143170)
Target: powerpc-linux-gnu
gcc version 4.4.0 20090107 (experimental) [trunk revision 143170] (Debian
20090107-1)
=== acats tests ===
=== acats Summary ===
# of expected passes2315
# of unexp
LAST_UPDATED: Wed Jan 7 22:55:40 UTC 2009 (revision 143170)
Target: i486-linux-gnu
gcc version 4.4.0 20090107 (experimental) [trunk revision 143170] (Debian
20090107-1)
=== acats tests ===
FAIL: cxa4004
FAIL: cxa4005
FAIL: cxa4026
=== acats Summary ===
#
LAST_UPDATED: Sun Jan 4 12:38:31 UTC 2009 (revision 143049)
Native configuration is arm-unknown-linux-gnueabi
=== libffi tests ===
Running target unix
=== libffi Summary ===
# of expected passes1389
# of unsupported tests 10
LAST_UPDATED: Sun Jan 4 12:38:31 UTC 2009 (revision 143049)
Target: s390-linux-gnu
gcc version 4.2.4 (Debian 4.2.4-5)
Native configuration is s390-ibm-linux-gnu
=== g++ tests ===
Running target unix
=== g++ Summary for unix ===
# of expected passes
please consider gcc-4.1 (4.1.2-24) for testing. all changes except the update on
the gcc-4_1-branch do not affect Debian unstable. the --with-tune=generic change
wasn't really necessary, it was already the default. no regressions seen in the
gcc testsuite.
Matthias
gcc-4.1 (4.1.2-24) unstable
Luk Claes schrieb:
> Matthias Klose wrote:
>> Luk Claes schrieb:
>>> Matthias Klose wrote:
Matthias Klose schrieb:
> There are some more regressions fixed on the gcc-4_3-branch. At least
> for some of those we should consider an update. I scanned the branch
> for wrong-code regres
Matthias Klose wrote:
> Luk Claes schrieb:
>> Matthias Klose wrote:
>>> Matthias Klose schrieb:
There are some more regressions fixed on the gcc-4_3-branch. At least
for some of those we should consider an update. I scanned the branch
for wrong-code regressions with -O2/-O3 and prep
Luk Claes schrieb:
> Matthias Klose wrote:
>> Matthias Klose schrieb:
>>> There are some more regressions fixed on the gcc-4_3-branch. At least
>>> for some of those we should consider an update. I scanned the branch
>>> for wrong-code regressions with -O2/-O3 and prepared an update at [1].
>>> No
#
# bts-link upstream status pull for source package gcc-4.1
# see http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2006/05/msg1.html
#
user bts-link-upstr...@lists.alioth.debian.org
# remote status report for #424402
# * http://gcc.gnu.org/PR34815
# * remote status changed: NEW -> RESOLVED
#
Your message dated Thu, 8 Jan 2009 21:21:38 +0100
with message-id <18790.24658.588268.757...@gargle.gargle.howl>
and subject line Re: /usr/share/doc/gcc-snapshot/README.Bugs missing
has caused the Debian Bug report #499038,
regarding /usr/share/doc/gcc-snapshot/README.Bugs missing
to be marked as
#
# bts-link upstream status pull for source package gcc-4.3
# see http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2006/05/msg1.html
#
user bts-link-upstr...@lists.alioth.debian.org
# remote status report for #484053
# * http://gcc.gnu.org/PR36415
# * remote status changed: UNCONFIRMED -> NEW
Your message dated Thu, 8 Jan 2009 20:03:55 +0100
with message-id <18790.19995.974268.385...@gargle.gargle.howl>
and subject line Re: gcc-snapshot: mips-triarch.dpatch failed at 1680
has caused the Debian Bug report #500258,
regarding gcc-snapshot: mips-triarch.dpatch failed at 1680
to be marked a
Package: g++-4.3
Version: 4.3.2-1.1
Severity: normal
In the example below destructor of local object doesn't work (there is no
output from it). However, if the call of f() is wrapped into
try {
f();
}
catch (...) {
throw;
}
then the destructor produces expected output. Here is th
Your message dated Thu, 08 Jan 2009 10:47:21 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#504323: fixed in gcc-snapshot 20090107-1
has caused the Debian Bug report #504323,
regarding openoffice.org-core: Segmentation fault at startup with gcc 4.4 libs
to be marked as done.
This means that you clai
Accepted:
gcc-snapshot_20090107-1.diff.gz
to pool/main/g/gcc-snapshot/gcc-snapshot_20090107-1.diff.gz
gcc-snapshot_20090107-1.dsc
to pool/main/g/gcc-snapshot/gcc-snapshot_20090107-1.dsc
gcc-snapshot_20090107-1_i386.deb
to pool/main/g/gcc-snapshot/gcc-snapshot_20090107-1_i386.deb
gcc-snapshot
gcc-snapshot_20090107-1_multi.changes uploaded successfully to localhost
along with the files:
gcc-snapshot_20090107-1.diff.gz
gcc-snapshot_20090107-1_powerpc.deb
gcc-snapshot_20090107.orig.tar.gz
gcc-snapshot_20090107-1.dsc
gcc-snapshot_20090107-1_i386.deb
Greetings,
Your Debia
--- Comment #20 from stephan dot bergmann at sun dot com 2009-01-08 08:31
---
re <#c17>:
"prepended member can change the negative offset of the other struct members":
see "the four bytes of referenceCount cancel out a previous four padding bytes
just before the unwindHeader member com
18 matches
Mail list logo
