Re: gcc build failures on alpha

2011-06-03 Thread Michael Cree
On 22/03/11 01:31, Matthias Klose wrote: > On 21.03.2011 13:19, Uros Bizjak wrote: >> On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 4:16 PM, Matthias Klose wrote: >>> https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=gcc-4.6&suite=experimental >>> >>> Bootstrap comparison failure! >>> gcc/opts.o differs >>> make[4]: *** [

Bug#629137: gcc-4.6: on amd64, sizeof(__int128_t) > sizeof(intmax_t)

2011-06-03 Thread brian m. carlson
Package: gcc-4.6 Version: 4.6.0-10 Severity: normal ISO C draft n1124[0] specifies (ยง7.18.1.5): The following type designates a signed integer type capable of representing any value of any signed integer type: intmax_t The following type designates an unsigned integer type capable o

Bug#625357: jigit: ftbfs with gcc-4.6 -Werror

2011-06-03 Thread Steve McIntyre
On Thu, Jun 02, 2011 at 01:16:59PM -0500, Jonathan Nieder wrote: >severity 625357 normal >retitle 625357 gcc -Wunused-but-set-variable should not be implied by -Wall (?) >tags 625357 = upstream moreinfo >quit > >Hi again, > >Steve McIntyre wrote: > >> I'll remove the -Werror to stop gcc breaking th

Bug#625357: jigit: ftbfs with gcc-4.6 -Werror

2011-06-03 Thread Steve McIntyre
On Wed, Jun 01, 2011 at 05:05:27PM -0500, Jonathan Nieder wrote: >Hi Steve, > >Steve McIntyre wrote: > >> I'll remove the -Werror to stop gcc breaking the build here, but I >> definitely believe that gcc is doing the wrong thing here. >> Technically, yes - the variables are set but unused. However,