Your message dated Fri, 4 Apr 2003 00:37:49 +0200
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line gcc build failures fixed
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 your
On Fri, Jan 24, 2003 at 02:28:31PM -0800, Jeff Bailey wrote:
I don't know if it's significant, but upstream announced .18 today with
the following changelog:
Changes from binutils 2.13.90.0.16:
...
5. Fix
On Fri, Jan 24, 2003 at 11:34:34AM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote:
which binutils are used? Some older versions had bugs that were
only triggered by gcc-3.2
At least I tested with binutils 2.13.90.0.16-1.
But, I don't know the version number of the buildd environment.
seems to be the
On Fri, Jan 24, 2003 at 10:23:01PM +0100, Richard Zidlicky wrote:
At least I tested with binutils 2.13.90.0.16-1.
But, I don't know the version number of the buildd environment.
seems to be the version used during the build as well. Haven't
tested this version but the problems I mentioned
At Wed, 22 Jan 2003 19:04:07 +0100,
Richard Zidlicky wrote:
On Wed, Jan 22, 2003 at 06:43:55AM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote:
On Sun, Jan 19, 2003 at 07:48:04PM -0800, Jeff Bailey wrote:
I haven't seen mention of it on this list, so I wanted to bring it up -
Bug #175526 against glibc
On Wed, Jan 22, 2003 at 06:43:55AM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote:
On Sun, Jan 19, 2003 at 07:48:04PM -0800, Jeff Bailey wrote:
I haven't seen mention of it on this list, so I wanted to bring it up -
Bug #175526 against glibc is m68k specific.
interesting. I am running glibc-2.3 and gcc
GOTO Masanori writes:
On Sun, Jan 19, 2003 at 07:48:04PM -0800, Jeff Bailey wrote:
I haven't seen mention of it on this list, so I wanted to bring it up -
Bug #175526 against glibc is m68k specific.
interesting. I am running glibc-2.3 and gcc-3.2 without much problems
here
7 matches
Mail list logo
