Re: Bug#545461: make: Implicit rule for .f files generate a f77 invocation.

2009-09-07 Thread Manoj Srivastava
reassign 545461 gfortran thanks On Mon, Sep 07 2009, Jörgen Tegnér wrote: > Since gfortran doesn't create a symlink from gfortran to f77 implicit rules > for fortran doesn't work. Example output below > $ make > f77 -c -o rmatvec.o rmatvec.f > make: f77: Command not found > make: *** [rmatvec

Processed: Re: Bug#545461: make: Implicit rule for .f files generate a f77 invocation.

2009-09-07 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > reassign 545461 gfortran Bug #545461 [make] make: Implicit rule for .f files generate a f77 invocation. Bug reassigned from package 'make' to 'gfortran'. Bug No longer marked as found in versions make-dfsg/3.81-6. > thanks Stopping processing here

Bug#540083: Is anyone taking care of this package?

2009-09-07 Thread Israel Herraiz
Hi, I reported this bug one month ago, including patches. I have been testing it without problems so far. Is anyone taking care of this package? Could the patches be applied to the package? Cheers, Israel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-gcc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsu

Results for 4.3.4 (Debian 4.3.4-2) testsuite on hppa-unknown-linux-gnu

2009-09-07 Thread Matthias Klose
LAST_UPDATED: Obtained from SVN: branches/gcc-4_3-branch revision 150451 Target: hppa-linux-gnu gcc version 4.3.4 (Debian 4.3.4-2) Native configuration is hppa-unknown-linux-gnu === g++ tests === Running target unix === g++ Summary === # of expected passes

gcc-4.3 4.3.4-2 MIGRATED to testing

2009-09-07 Thread Debian testing watch
FYI: The status of the gcc-4.3 source package in Debian's testing distribution has changed. Previous version: 4.3.4-1 Current version: 4.3.4-2 -- This email is automatically generated once a day. As the installation of new packages into testing happens multiple times a day you will receive

Re: Depencencies of gcc on glibc/eglibc and libc6-i386

2009-09-07 Thread Ludovic Brenta
Selon Aurelien Jarno: >> But in a machine with glibc 2.5 and libc6-i386 2.5 that builds gcc >> produces binary packages that are uninstallable on the same machine >> because they conflict with glibc (<< 2.9-22). Is that intentional? To >> me it seems to break the Law of Least Astonishment; if I b

[Bug tree-optimization/41101] [4.4/4.5 Regression] ICE in compute_antic, at tree-ssa-pre.c:2419

2009-09-07 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #22 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-09-07 10:01 --- Created an attachment (id=18526) --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18526&action=view) preprocessed libstdc++ testcase (32bit) Testcase that fails at -O2 with the patch. The 2nd patch bootstraps

Re: Depencencies of gcc on glibc/eglibc and libc6-i386

2009-09-07 Thread Aurelien Jarno
Ludovic Brenta a écrit : > Matthias Klose writes: >> On 29.08.2009 18:38, Ludovic Brenta wrote: >>> I would like to better understand the depencencies between the various >>> gcc packages and libc6{,-i386}, in particular as they relate to the >>> transition to /lib32. >>> >>> In debian/rules.conf