Processed: Re: Bug#998802: which deprecated

Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > fixed 998802 elfutils/0.187-2 Bug #998802 [libdebuginfod-common] which deprecated Marked as fixed in versions elfutils/0.187-2. > thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. -- 998802:

Processed: Re: Bug#1063768: debuginfod: man page gives an outdated equivalent of -U

Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > fixed 1063768 elfutils/0.191-1 Bug #1063768 [debuginfod] debuginfod: man page gives an outdated equivalent of -U Marked as fixed in versions elfutils/0.191-1. > thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. --

Processed: Re: gcc-13 FTCBFS: target system type set to nvptx-unknown-none

Processing control commands: > retitle -1 gcc-13 FTCBFS: nvptx does not cross compile Bug #1060075 [src:gcc-13] gcc-13 FTCBFS: target system type set to nvptx-unknown-none Changed Bug title to 'gcc-13 FTCBFS: nvptx does not cross compile' from 'gcc-13 FTCBFS: target system type set to

Processed: Re: Bug#1069066: LIMITS_H_TEST is frequently wrong on Debian

Processing control commands: > tags -1 - patch Bug #1069066 [src:gcc-14] LIMITS_H_TEST is frequently wrong on Debian Removed tag(s) patch. -- 1069066: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1069066 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems

Processed: Re: Bug#1067087: GCC is not the place to enable frame pointers

Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > reopen 1067087 Bug #1067087 {Done: Matthias Klose } [src:gcc-14] GCC frame pointers Bug reopened Ignoring request to alter fixed versions of bug #1067087 to the same values previously set > reassign 1067087 dpkg-dev Bug #1067087 [src:gcc-14]

Processed: Re: Bug#1063664: gcc-13-cross: file conflicts between gnat-13- and gnat-{9,10}-

Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > user debian...@lists.debian.org Setting user to debian...@lists.debian.org (was hel...@subdivi.de). > usertags 1063664 + fileconflict There were no usertags set. Usertags are now: fileconflict. > reassign 1063664 >

Processed: Re: Bug#1067453: gnat: Ada.Calendar.Clock crashes on time_t64 architectures

Processing control commands: > forwarded -1 https://gcc.gnu.org/PR114424 Bug #1067453 [gnat-13] gnat: Ada.Calendar.Clock crashes on time_t64 architectures Set Bug forwarded-to-address to 'https://gcc.gnu.org/PR114424'. -- 1067453: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1067453

Processed: Re: Bug#1066891: gcc-13: ICE compiling OpenSSH: in change_address_1

Processing control commands: > forwarded -1 https://gcc.gnu.org/PR114358 Bug #1066891 [src:gcc-13] gcc-13: ICE compiling OpenSSH: in change_address_1 Set Bug forwarded-to-address to 'https://gcc.gnu.org/PR114358'. -- 1066891: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1066891 Debian Bug

Processed: Re: gcc-13: ICE compiling OpenSSH: in change_address_1

Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > tags 1066891 - moreinfo Bug #1066891 [src:gcc-13] gcc-13: ICE compiling OpenSSH: in change_address_1 Removed tag(s) moreinfo. > found 1066891 13.2.0-18 Bug #1066891 [src:gcc-13] gcc-13: ICE compiling OpenSSH: in change_address_1 Marked as found

Processed: Re: Processed: gcc-13: ICE compiling OpenSSH: in change_address_1

Processing control commands: > tags -1 + moreinfo Bug #1066891 [src:gcc-13] gcc-13: ICE compiling OpenSSH: in change_address_1 Added tag(s) moreinfo. -- 1066891: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1066891 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems

Bug#1066849: Re: Bug#1066849: libelf1 Version mismatch (0.190-1+b1 vs 0.191-1)

Hello, Thanks for the info. So this may be linked to ? Do you know where I can find information about the time_t64 transition?

Processed: Re: libdebuginfod1t64 dependency problem breaks the upgrade

Processing control commands: > retitle -1 libdebuginfod1t64 dependency problem makes dpkg fail with attempt > of removal of libdebuginfod-common Bug #1065603 [libdebuginfod1t64] libdebuginfod1t64 dependency problem breaks the upgrade Changed Bug title to 'libdebuginfod1t64 dependency problem

Re: timet64 ABI change for ports architectures

[resending to debian-ports, I didn't see this mail in the mail archives for the architectures] probematic arch currently is hppa, where both gcc-13 and gcc-14 builds are ftbfs. see the logs from experimental. On 20.02.24 05:09, Matthias Klose wrote: We'll hard-code the -D_TIME_BITS=64

Processed: Re: Bug#1063882: gcc: Internal error from ternary cond as inline asm parameter

Processing control commands: > tags -1 + moreinfo Bug #1063882 [gcc] gcc: Internal error from ternary cond as inline asm parameter Added tag(s) moreinfo. -- 1063882: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1063882 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems

Processed (with 1 error): Re: Bug#1062354: libatomic1: 14-20240127-1 missing libat_test_and_set_1_i2

Processing control commands: > severity 1061370 grave Bug #1061370 [src:gcc-14] gcc-14 ftbfs on armel Severity set to 'grave' from 'important' > forcemerge -1 1061370 Bug #1062354 [libatomic1] libatomic1: 14-20240127-1 missing libat_test_and_set_1_i2 Unable to merge bugs because: package of

Processed: Re: Bug#1061370: gcc-14 ftbfs on armel

Processing control commands: > tags -1 patch Bug #1061370 [src:gcc-14] gcc-14 ftbfs on armel Added tag(s) patch. -- 1061370: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1061370 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems

Processed: Re: Bug#1061370: gcc-14 ftbfs on armel

Processing control commands: > affects -1 systemd Bug #1061370 [src:gcc-14] gcc-14 ftbfs on armel Added indication that 1061370 affects systemd -- 1061370: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1061370 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems

Processed: Re: gm2-14: typo in title in gm2-14 package claiming being D compiler, not modula

Processing control commands: > tags 1061372 + patch Bug #1061372 [gm2-14] gm2-14: typo in title in gm2-14 package claiming being D compiler, not modula Added tag(s) patch. -- 1061372: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1061372 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact

gcc displaying bullshit allocation numbers? (was: Re: Ability to further support 32bit architectures)

Hi On Thu, Jan 11, 2024 at 10:25:39AM +0100, Bastian Blank wrote: > Linux 6.7 fails to build on at least i386 and armhf. Even it now > manages to make the compiler fail to allocate memory: > | cc1: out of memory allocating 135266296 bytes after a total of 235675648 > bytes I just tried to find

Processed: Re: gcc-13: Please build gcc with -mbranch-protection=standard to fix PAC/BTI support on arm64

Processing control commands: > tags -1 + moreinfo Bug #1057469 [gcc-12] gcc-12: Please build with -mbranch-protection=standard to enable PAC/BTI support on arm64 Ignoring request to alter tags of bug #1057469 to the same tags previously set -- 1057469:

Processed: Re: gcc-13: Please build gcc with -mbranch-protection=standard to fix PAC/BTI support on arm64

Processing control commands: > tags -1 + moreinfo Bug #1057469 [gcc-12] gcc-12: Please build with -mbranch-protection=standard to enable PAC/BTI support on arm64 Added tag(s) moreinfo. -- 1057469: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1057469 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact

Processed: Re: libmpfr6: major formatted output function bugs with %c and the value 0

Processing control commands: > tags -1 fixed-upstream Bug #1057355 [libmpfr6] libmpfr6: major formatted output function bugs with %c and the value 0 Added tag(s) fixed-upstream. -- 1057355: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1057355 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact

Re: Enabling PAC/BTI support on arm64

Hey Aurelien, On 2023-12-05 08:32, Aurelien Jarno wrote: > What about the patch below, it basically just change the compiler to > always enable -mbranch-protection=standard, and it's also used for the > configure script. > --- glibc-2.37/debian/sysdeps/arm64.mk > +++

Re: Enabling PAC/BTI support on arm64

Hi Emanuele, On 2023-12-04 16:13, Emanuele Rocca wrote: > Hello Aurelien, > > On 2023-12-03 01:08, Aurelien Jarno wrote: > > On 2023-11-29 09:56, Emanuele Rocca wrote: > > > To add BTI to the NOTE section of the above, we would need to build both > > > GCC and glibc with

Re: Enabling PAC/BTI support on arm64

Hello Aurelien, On 2023-12-03 01:08, Aurelien Jarno wrote: > On 2023-11-29 09:56, Emanuele Rocca wrote: > > To add BTI to the NOTE section of the above, we would need to build both > > GCC and glibc with -mbranch-protection=standard. For gcc-13 I have > > proposed https://bugs.debian.org/1055711.

Re: Enabling PAC/BTI support on arm64

Hi Emanuele, On 2023-11-29 09:56, Emanuele Rocca wrote: > Hi! > > I would like to ask for suggestions about the best way to enable PAC/BTI > support in glibc and GCC on Debian. > > PAC and BTI are two useful Arm security features, see this recent > presentation at the Mini Debconf for all

Bug#1050429: GCC 13 stopped supporting a documented option (was Re: Bug#1050429: musl: unusable on mipsel, mips64el: mipsel-linux-gnu-gcc: unrecognised command-line option '-EL')

On 2023-11-24 18:58 +, Thorsten Glaser wrote: > Unfortunately, eller is down Eller had to move hosting provider at short notice. It is now racked again but needs network configuration for new location. It will hopefully re-appear by end-Monday. Wookey -- Principal hats: Debian, Wookw

Bug#1050429: GCC 13 stopped supporting a documented option (was Re: Bug#1050429: musl: unusable on mipsel, mips64el: mipsel-linux-gnu-gcc: unrecognised command-line option '-EL')

n terminated. | % mips64el-linux-gnuabi64-gcc | mips64el-linux-gnuabi64-gcc: fatal error: no input files | compilation terminated. Now, what is the problem? Well, the spec removes the knowledge about the -EL and -EB arguments by overriding *cc1. So the fix is to re-add those arguments: | %rename cc1 ol

Bug#1050429: GCC 13 stopped supporting a documented option (was Re: Bug#1050429: musl: unusable on mipsel, mips64el: mipsel-linux-gnu-gcc: unrecognised command-line option '-EL')

Matthias Klose dixit: > you can work around it Unfortunately not. (The musl packagers might be able to.) >, this is not an RC issue. Please stop playing > bug ping pong. If GCC stops supporting an option it used to support, and where the GCC documentation say it’s supported, it in my opinion

Processed: Re: Bug#1050429: musl: unusable on mipsel, mips64el: mipsel-linux-gnu-gcc: unrecognised command-line option '-EL'

Processing control commands: > severity -1 normal Bug #1050429 [gcc-13] musl: unusable on mipsel, mips64el: mipsel-linux-gnu-gcc: unrecognised command-line option '-EL' Severity set to 'normal' from 'serious' -- 1050429: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1050429 Debian Bug

Processed: Re: Bug#1050429: musl: unusable on mipsel, mips64el: mipsel-linux-gnu-gcc: unrecognised command-line option '-EL'

Processing control commands: > severity -1 serious Bug #1050429 [gcc-13] musl: unusable on mipsel, mips64el: mipsel-linux-gnu-gcc: unrecognised command-line option '-EL' Severity set to 'serious' from 'normal' -- 1050429: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1050429 Debian Bug

Processed: Re: Bug#1055711: gcc-13: Please build gcc with -mbranch-protection=standard to fix PAC/BTI support on arm64

Processing control commands: > tags -1 + moreinfo Bug #1055711 [gcc-13] gcc-13: Please build gcc with -mbranch-protection=standard to fix PAC/BTI support on arm64 Added tag(s) moreinfo. -- 1055711: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1055711 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact

Processed: Re: Bug#1050429: musl: unusable on mipsel, mips64el: mipsel-linux-gnu-gcc: unrecognised command-line option '-EL'

Processing control commands: > severity -1 normal Bug #1050429 [gcc-13] musl: unusable on mipsel, mips64el: mipsel-linux-gnu-gcc: unrecognised command-line option '-EL' Severity set to 'normal' from 'serious' -- 1050429: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1050429 Debian Bug

Processed: Re: Bug#1056238: gcc-13: FTBFS on mips64el: E: Build killed with signal TERM after 150 minutes of inactivity

Processing control commands: > tags -1 + moreinfo Bug #1056238 [src:gcc-13] gcc-13: FTBFS on mips64el: E: Build killed with signal TERM after 150 minutes of inactivity Added tag(s) moreinfo. -- 1056238: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1056238 Debian Bug Tracking System

Processed (with 1 error): Re: Bug#1055750: Bug#1055228: plplot: FTBFS on armhf (test segfault)

Processing control commands: > reassign -1 plplot Bug #1055750 [gfortran] gfortran: [armhf] Yield SIGBUS when compiling with -fstack-clash-protection Bug reassigned from package 'gfortran' to 'plplot'. No longer marked as found in versions 13.2.0-1. Ignoring request to alter fixed versions of

Processed: Re: Bug#1055228: plplot: FTBFS on armhf (test segfault)

Processing control commands: > forwarded -1 https://sourceforge.net/p/plplot/bugs/206/ Bug #1055750 [gfortran] gfortran: [armhf] Yield SIGBUS when compiling with -fstack-clash-protection Set Bug forwarded-to-address to 'https://sourceforge.net/p/plplot/bugs/206/'. -- 1055750:

Re: gcc-multilib & g++-multilib issues

Please stop filing duplicating bogus reports.  You make unproven claims without giving any rationale. On 14.11.23 00:04, jahway-bug-reports wrote: Hi Matthias, There is software which will not build natively on Debian 10/11/12 without the gcc-multilib & g++-multilib packages

Processed: Re: Bug#1053405: darktable: FTBFS on arm64 (gcc bug?)

Processing control commands: > reassign -1 src:gcc-13 Bug #1053405 [src:darktable] darktable: FTBFS on arm64 (gcc bug?) Bug reassigned from package 'src:darktable' to 'src:gcc-13'. No longer marked as found in versions darktable/4.4.2-1. Ignoring request to alter fixed versions of bug #1053405 to

Processed: Re: libquadmath (gcc): license may be inaccurate

Processing control commands: > reassign 1052314 libquadmath0 Bug #1052314 [libquadmath] libquadmath (gcc): license may be inaccurate Warning: Unknown package 'libquadmath' Bug reassigned from package 'libquadmath' to 'libquadmath0'. No longer marked as found in versions libquadmath0. Ignoring

Processed: Re: Bug#1050013: gcc-13: Please don't build the Ada, Go, D and M2 on LoongArch

Processing control commands: > tags -1 - moreinfo Bug #1050013 [gcc-13] gcc-13: Please don't build the Ada, Go, D and M2 on LoongArch Removed tag(s) moreinfo. -- 1050013: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1050013 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with

Processed: Re: aarch64: Miscompilation at O1 level (O0 is working)

Processing control commands: > tags -1 + moreinfo Bug #1050933 [g++-13] aarch64: Miscompilation at O1 level (O0 is working) Added tag(s) moreinfo. -- 1050933: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1050933 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems

Processed: Re: False positive -Warray-bounds warning

Processing control commands: > tags -1 + moreinfo Bug #1041607 [libstdc++-13-dev] False positive -Warray-bounds warning Added tag(s) moreinfo. -- 1041607: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1041607 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems

Processed: Re: Bug#1050429: musl: unusable on mipsel, mips64el: mipsel-linux-gnu-gcc: unrecognised command-line option '-EL'

Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > reassign 1050429 gcc-13 13.2.0-2 Bug #1050429 [musl-tools] musl: unusable on mipsel, mips64el: mipsel-linux-gnu-gcc: unrecognised command-line option '-EL' Bug reassigned from package 'musl-tools' to 'gcc-13'. No longer marked as found in

Re: Bug#1050429: musl: unusable on mipsel, mips64el: mipsel-linux-gnu-gcc: unrecognised command-line option '-EL'

reassign 1050429 gcc-13 13.2.0-2 notfound 1050429 12.3.0-8 affects 1050429 musl-tools thanks Dixi quod… >The -EL is not even musl-specific?! > >(sid_mips64el-dchroot)tg@eller:~$ cat >"/usr/lib/mips64el-linux-musl/musl-gcc.specs" […] Worse, doing mips64el-linux-gnuabi64-gcc{,-12} -dumpspecs and

Re: Bug#1050429: musl: unusable on mipsel, mips64el: mipsel-linux-gnu-gcc: unrecognised command-line option '-EL'

Dixi quod… >(sid_mips64el-dchroot)tg@eller:~$ mips64el-linux-gnuabi64-gcc hi.c -EL >(sid_mips64el-dchroot)tg@eller:~$ mips64el-linux-gnuabi64-gcc hi.c -specs >"/usr/lib/mips64el-linux-musl/musl-gcc.specs" >mips64el-linux-gnuabi64-gcc: error: unrecognized command-line option '-EL'

Re: Bug#1050429: musl: unusable on mipsel, mips64el: mipsel-linux-gnu-gcc: unrecognised command-line option '-EL'

Dixi quod… >According to upstream documentation, -EL is supposed to be supported >by the compiler driver: OK so it’s not the compiler *driver*… (sid_mips64el-dchroot)tg@eller:~$ mips64el-linux-gnuabi64-gcc hi.c -EL (sid_mips64el-dchroot)tg@eller:~$ mips64el-linux-gnuabi64-gcc hi.c -specs

Re: Bug#1050429: musl: unusable on mipsel, mips64el: mipsel-linux-gnu-gcc: unrecognised command-line option '-EL'

Hm. According to upstream documentation, -EL is supposed to be supported by the compiler driver: https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/MIPS-Options.html bye, //mirabilos -- "Using Lynx is like wearing a really good pair of shades: cuts out the glare and harmful UV (ultra-vanity), and you

Processed: Re: Bug#1050415: PermissionError: [Errno 13] Permission denied

Processing control commands: > tags -1 - moreinfo Bug #1050415 [cvise] PermissionError: [Errno 13] Permission denied Removed tag(s) moreinfo. -- 1050415: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1050415 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems

Processed: Re: Bug#1050415: PermissionError: [Errno 13] Permission denied

Processing control commands: > tags -1 + moreinfo Bug #1050415 [cvise] PermissionError: [Errno 13] Permission denied Added tag(s) moreinfo. -- 1050415: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1050415 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems

Processed: Re: gcc-defaults: Please provide libstdc++-doc metapackage

Processing control commands: > tags -1 patch Bug #756120 [gcc-defaults] gcc-defaults: Please provide libstdc++-doc metapackage Added tag(s) patch. -- 756120: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=756120 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems

Processed: Re: Bug#1050013: gcc-13: Please don't build the Ada, Go, D and M2 on LoongArch

Processing control commands: > tags -1 + moreinfo Bug #1050013 [gcc-13] gcc-13: Please don't build the Ada, Go, D and M2 on LoongArch Added tag(s) moreinfo. -- 1050013: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1050013 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with

Processed: Re: gcc-snapshot: FTBFS on hurd-i386 (and other archs?)

Processing control commands: > tags -1 + moreinfo Bug #1029050 [src:gcc-snapshot] gcc-snapshot: FTBFS on hurd-i386 (and other archs?) Added tag(s) moreinfo. -- 1029050: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1029050 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with

Processed: Re: Now gcc-13: [Fwd: [PATCH] gcc-12: Re-enable split-stack support for GNU/Hurd.]

Processing control commands: > tags -1 + moreinfo Bug #1033007 [gcc-snapshot] Now gcc-13: [Fwd: [PATCH] gcc-12: Re-enable split-stack support for GNU/Hurd.] Added tag(s) moreinfo. -- 1033007: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1033007 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact

Bug#1033007: Now gcc-13: [Fwd: [PATCH] gcc-12: Re-enable split-stack support for GNU/Hurd.]

Control: tags -1 + moreinfo please address this upstream.

Processed: Re: Bug#1042482: multilib lsan packages: dysfunctional?

Processing control commands: > clone -1 -2 Bug #1042482 [lib32lsan0,lib64lsan0,libx32lsan0] multilib lsan packages: dysfunctional? Warning: Unknown package 'lib64lsan0' Bug 1042482 cloned as bug 1043248 Warning: Unknown package 'lib64lsan0' > retitle -2 gcc-13: missing debhelper dependency for

Processed: Re: Bug#1042482: multilib lsan packages: dysfunctional?

Processing control commands: > tags -1 + patch Bug #1042482 [lib32lsan0,lib64lsan0,libx32lsan0] multilib lsan packages: dysfunctional? Warning: Unknown package 'lib64lsan0' Added tag(s) patch. Warning: Unknown package 'lib64lsan0' -- 1042482:

Processed: Re: False positive -Warray-bounds warning

Processing control commands: > retitle -1 False positive -Warray-bounds warning Bug #1041607 [libstdc++-13-dev] libstdc++-13-dev: std::thread& std::thread::operator=(std::thread&&) fails on swapping thread ids Changed Bug title to 'False positive -Warray-bounds warning' from 'libstdc++-13-dev:

Processed: Re: g++-12: Conditional compilation error in optimized mode

Processing control commands: > tags -1 + moreinfo Bug #1038134 [g++-12] g++-12: Conditional compilation error in optimized mode Added tag(s) moreinfo. -- 1038134: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1038134 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems

Re: Processed: raising severity of GCC-13 ftbfs issues, preparing for the GCC defaults change

On Wednesday, 5 July 2023 14:59:14 CEST Debian Bug Tracking System wrote: > Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: [...] > > severity 1037638 important > Bug #1037638 [src:ecdsautils] ecdsautils: ftbfs with GCC-13 > Severity set to 'important' from 'normal' [...] > Please contact me if

Processed: Re: postrm: bash -> sh

Processing control commands: > found -1 0.189-2 Bug #999414 {Done: Matthias Klose } [libdebuginfod-common] postrm: bash -> sh Marked as found in versions elfutils/0.189-2; no longer marked as fixed in versions elfutils/0.189-2 and reopened. > found -1 0.189-3 Bug #999414 [libdebuginfod-common]

Processed: Re: Seems fixed in unstable

Processing control commands: > retitle -1 libisl23: amd64/i386 baseline violation: uses BMI instructions Bug #1038603 [gcc-12] gcc-12 was compiled with BMI instructions, which seems to sometimes make it crash in older CPUs Changed Bug title to 'libisl23: amd64/i386 baseline violation: uses BMI

Processed: Re: gcc-13 ftbfs on mipsel

Processing control commands: > severity -1 important Bug #1037414 [src:gcc-13] gcc-13 ftbfs on mipsel Severity set to 'important' from 'serious' -- 1037414: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1037414 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems

Re: check_ali_update.sh is triggered with gcc-12 12.3.0-2

> check_ali_update.sh is triggered with gcc-12 12.3.0-2. Hello. This is a false alert. Commit 8fd9efdd6cc7fd537aa3ac1d4c57178ca0d3e6b7 in the GCC packaging should prevent it. Here are some details, in case further investigation is required. Between gnat-12_12.2.0-14_amd64.deb and

Processed: Re: Bug#1038603: gcc-12 was compiled with BMI instructions, which seems to it sometimes crashing in older CPUs

Processing control commands: > tags -1 + moreinfo Bug #1038603 [gcc-12] gcc-12 was compiled with BMI instructions, which seems to sometimes make it crash in older CPUs Added tag(s) moreinfo. -- 1038603: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1038603 Debian Bug Tracking System

Processed: Re: gcc-12-cross-ports: not binNMU safe

Processing control commands: > severity -1 important Bug #1032165 [src:gcc-12-cross-ports] gcc-12-cross-ports: not binNMU safe Severity set to 'important' from 'serious' -- 1032165: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1032165 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact

Re: check_ali_update.sh is triggered with gcc-12 12.3.0-2

Hello. > check_ali_update.sh is triggered with gcc-12 12.3.0-2. Probably, the only fix requires to rename of Ada -dev packages: ~20 trivial NMUs + NEW + stable-proposed-updates > There were no changes to gcc/ada and libada. The change may be caused by generated code interfacing with C. >

Processed: Re: Bug#1037640: efibootguard: ftbfs with GCC-13

Processing control commands: > reassign -1 src:gcc-13 Bug #1037640 [src:efibootguard] efibootguard: ftbfs with GCC-13 Bug reassigned from package 'src:efibootguard' to 'src:gcc-13'. No longer marked as found in versions efibootguard/0.13-2. Ignoring request to alter fixed versions of bug #1037640

Processed: Re: gcc-12-base: please bump the Breaks: gnat (<< 12) for smoother upgrades from bullseye

Processing control commands: > tag -1 patch Bug #1036641 [gcc-12-base] gcc-12-base: please bump the Breaks: gnat (<< 12) for smoother upgrades from bullseye Added tag(s) patch. -- 1036641: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1036641 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact

Re: using spec file or patchelf for Debian packages to canonicalize ld path [was: Switching GLIBC_DYNAMIC_LINKER in Trixie]

* Luca Boccassi: > On Mon, 15 May 2023 at 10:57, Florian Weimer wrote: >> >> * Luca Boccassi: >> >> > On Mon, 8 May 2023 at 23:08, Florian Weimer wrote: >> >> >> >> * Luca Boccassi: >> >> >> >> > But the more I think about it, the more I am convinced that the >> >> > default option working best

Processed: Re: libmpfr6: multiple bugs in GNU MPFR 4.2.0, patches available

Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > tags 1036606 fixed-upstream Bug #1036606 [libmpfr6] libmpfr6: multiple bugs in GNU MPFR 4.2.0, patches available Added tag(s) fixed-upstream. > End of message, stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. -- 1036606:

Re: using spec file or patchelf for Debian packages to canonicalize ld path [was: Switching GLIBC_DYNAMIC_LINKER in Trixie]

On Mon, 15 May 2023 at 10:57, Florian Weimer wrote: > > * Luca Boccassi: > > > On Mon, 8 May 2023 at 23:08, Florian Weimer wrote: > >> > >> * Luca Boccassi: > >> > >> > But the more I think about it, the more I am convinced that the > >> > default option working best for Debian is the one that

Re: Switching GLIBC_DYNAMIC_LINKER in Trixie

* Luca Boccassi: > On Mon, 8 May 2023 at 23:08, Florian Weimer wrote: >> >> * Luca Boccassi: >> >> > But the more I think about it, the more I am convinced that the >> > default option working best for Debian is the one that matches the >> > project's choice of a filesystem layout. After all,

Re: using spec file or patchelf for Debian packages to canonicalize ld path [was: Switching GLIBC_DYNAMIC_LINKER in Trixie]

On Mon, 8 May 2023 at 23:17, Luca Boccassi wrote: > > On Mon, 8 May 2023 at 23:08, Florian Weimer wrote: > > > > * Luca Boccassi: > > > > > But the more I think about it, the more I am convinced that the > > > default option working best for Debian is the one that matches the > > > project's

Processed: Re: gcc-13: Change "loongarch64-linux-gnuf64" into "loongarch64-linux-gnu"

Processing control commands: > tags -1 moreinfo Bug #1031850 [gcc-13] gcc-13: Change "loongarch64-linux-gnuf64" into "loongarch64-linux-gnu" Ignoring request to alter tags of bug #1031850 to the same tags previously set -- 1031850: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1031850

Re: Switching GLIBC_DYNAMIC_LINKER in Trixie

On Mon, 8 May 2023 at 23:08, Florian Weimer wrote: > > * Luca Boccassi: > > > But the more I think about it, the more I am convinced that the > > default option working best for Debian is the one that matches the > > project's choice of a filesystem layout. After all, this is > > configurable in

Re: Switching GLIBC_DYNAMIC_LINKER in Trixie

* Luca Boccassi: > But the more I think about it, the more I am convinced that the > default option working best for Debian is the one that matches the > project's choice of a filesystem layout. After all, this is > configurable in the toolchain for a reason. It's not really configurable. You

Processed: Re: Processed: your mail

Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > notfixed 1016903 12.2.0-8 Bug #1016903 [g++-12] tree-vectorize: Wrong code at O2 level (-fno-tree-vectorize is working) No longer marked as fixed in versions 12.2.0-8. > End of message, stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need

Re: Bug#1031982: bullseye-pu: package gcc-10/10.2.1-6+deb11u1

Hi, On Sun, Feb 26, 2023 at 11:39:02AM +0100, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote: > Package: release.debian.org > Severity: normal > Tags: bullseye > User: release.debian@packages.debian.org > Usertags: pu > X-Debbugs-Cc: gcc...@packages.debian.org, j...@debian.org, d...@ubuntu.com, >

Re: RFC: More C errors by default in GCC 14 (no more implicit function declarations etc.)

* G. Branden Robinson: > Perhaps the thing to do here is have, , yet another command-line > option for GCC. The Ada language did something similar a couple of > decades ago to tighten up the language for hard real-time demands, with > what it called the "Ravenscar profile".[1] That proved

Re: RFC: More C errors by default in GCC 14 (no more implicit function declarations etc.)

Oskari Pirhonen writes: > [[PGP Signed Part:Undecided]] > On Tue, Apr 18, 2023 at 16:07:45 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: >> Gentoo has been fixing various packages for building with Clang, which >> covers a superset of the issues that need to be addressed: >> >> [TRACKER] Support LLVM/Clang

Re: RFC: More C errors by default in GCC 14 (no more implicit function declarations etc.)

On Tue, Apr 18, 2023 at 16:07:45 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > Gentoo has been fixing various packages for building with Clang, which > covers a superset of the issues that need to be addressed: > > [TRACKER] Support LLVM/Clang as alternative system compiler >

Re: RFC: More C errors by default in GCC 14 (no more implicit function declarations etc.)

Paul Wise writes: > On Tue, 2023-04-18 at 16:07 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > >> TL;DR: I want to propose a GCC 14 change which will impact >> distributions, so I'd like to gather some feedback from Debian. > > Is this change being made the upstream defaults? > > Or will it be a distro

Re: RFC: More C errors by default in GCC 14 (no more implicit function declarations etc.)

On Tue, 2023-04-18 at 16:07 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > TL;DR: I want to propose a GCC 14 change which will impact > distributions, so I'd like to gather some feedback from Debian. Is this change being made the upstream defaults? Or will it be a distro override like the hardening flags are?

Re: RFC: More C errors by default in GCC 14 (no more implicit function declarations etc.)

Hi! On Tue, 2023-04-18 at 17:54:20 -0500, G. Branden Robinson wrote: > At 2023-04-18T16:07:45+0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > > TL;DR: I want to propose a GCC 14 change which will impact > > distributions, so I'd like to gather some feedback from Debian. > > I would appreciate some discussion on

Re: RFC: More C errors by default in GCC 14 (no more implicit function declarations etc.)

[I am not subscribed to debian-gcc or c-std-porting] Hi Florian, At 2023-04-18T16:07:45+0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > TL;DR: I want to propose a GCC 14 change which will impact > distributions, so I'd like to gather some feedback from Debian. > > Clang has disabled support for a few historic C

Processed: Re: gcc: should reject combination of i686 architecture and fcf-protection feature

Processing control commands: > affects -1 = sudo Bug #1005863 [gcc-11] gcc: should reject combination of i686 architecture and fcf-protection feature Removed indication that 1005863 affects gobjc++-12-x86-64-linux-gnu, libass, libjavascriptcoregtk-4.0-18, and libfsapfs-dev Added indication that

Processed: Re: gcc-11: invalid opcode for Geode LX on i386

Processing control commands: > affects -1 + sudo Bug #1005863 [gcc-11] gcc-11: invalid opcode for Geode LX on i386 Added indication that 1005863 affects sudo -- 1005863: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1005863 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with

Processed: Re: gcc-11: invalid opcode for Geode LX on i386

Processing control commands: > affects -1 - sudo net-tools Bug #1005863 [gcc-11] gcc-11: invalid opcode for Geode LX on i386 Removed indication that 1005863 affects sudo and net-tools > affects -1 + libjavascriptcoregtk-4.0-18 Bug #1005863 [gcc-11] gcc-11: invalid opcode for Geode LX on i386

Processed: Re: release-notes: i386 notes should specify minimum CPU requirements

Processing control commands: > affects 1005863 net-tools Bug #1005863 [gcc-11] gcc-11: invalid opcode for Geode LX on i386 Added indication that 1005863 affects net-tools > tags -1 moreinfo Bug #1033065 [release-notes] release-notes: i386 notes should specify minimum CPU requirements Added

Bug#1033007: Now gcc-13: [Fwd: [PATCH] gcc-12: Re-enable split-stack support for GNU/Hurd.]

Package: gcc-snapshot Version: 1:20230315-1 Severity: important Tags: patch User: debian-h...@lists.debian.org Usertags: hurd Affects: gcc-snapshot X-Debbugs-CC: debian-h...@lists.debian.org Hello, seems like the patch gcc_config_gnu.h.diff, in debian gcc-12 named: pr104290-followup.diff was lost

Processed: Re: gcc-13: Change "loongarch64-linux-gnuf64" into "loongarch64-linux-gnu"

Processing control commands: > tags -1 + moreinfo Bug #1031850 [gcc-13] gcc-13: Change "loongarch64-linux-gnuf64" into "loongarch64-linux-gnu" Added tag(s) moreinfo. -- 1031850: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1031850 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org

Processed: Re: Bug#1032275: gcc-12-cross: gfortran-12-ARCH is missing Provides: virtual packages

Processing control commands: > tags -1 + wontfix Bug #1032275 [gfortran-12-aarch64-linux-gnu] gcc-12-cross: gfortran-12-ARCH is missing Provides: virtual packages Added tag(s) wontfix. > close -1 Bug #1032275 [gfortran-12-aarch64-linux-gnu] gcc-12-cross: gfortran-12-ARCH is missing Provides:

Processed: Re: Bug#1032165: gcc-12-cross-ports: not binNMU safe

Processing control commands: > clone -1 -2 -3 -4 Bug #1032165 [src:gcc-12-cross-ports] gcc-12-cross-ports: not binNMU safe Bug 1032165 cloned as bugs 1032216-1032218 > reassign -2 gcc-9-cross-ports 25 Bug #1032216 [src:gcc-12-cross-ports] gcc-12-cross-ports: not binNMU safe Bug reassigned from

Re: Bug#1032165: gcc-12-cross-ports: not binNMU safe

Control: clone -1 -2 -3 -4 Control: reassign -2 gcc-9-cross-ports 25 Control: retitle -2 gcc-9-cross-ports: not binNMU-safe Control: reassign -3 gcc-9-cross 27 Control: retitle -3 gcc-9-cross: not binNMU-safe Control: reassign -4 gcc-10-cross-mipsen 3+c5 Control: retitle -4 gcc-10-cross-mipsen:

Processed: Re: Bug#1032165: gcc-12-cross-ports: not binNMU safe

Processing control commands: > clone -1 -2 Bug #1032165 [src:gcc-12-cross-ports] gcc-12-cross-ports: not binNMU safe Bug 1032165 cloned as bug 1032167 > reassign -2 gcc-11-cross-mipsen 5+c3 Bug #1032167 [src:gcc-12-cross-ports] gcc-12-cross-ports: not binNMU safe Bug reassigned from package

Re: Bug#1032165: gcc-12-cross-ports: not binNMU safe

Control: clone -1 -2 Control: reassign -2 gcc-11-cross-mipsen 5+c3 Control: retitle -2 gcc-11-cross-mipsen: not binNMU-safe On 2023-02-28 22:13:59 +0100, Sebastian Ramacher wrote: > Source: gcc-12-cross-ports > Version: 12 > Severity: serious > > The method to compute the version of the binary

Processed: Re: gcc-11: generate bad code for matplotlib with -O1/-O2 on mips64el

Processing control commands: > forwarded -1 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104914 Bug #1004184 [src:gcc-11] gcc-11: generate bad code for matplotlib with -O1/-O2 on mips64el Set Bug forwarded-to-address to 'https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104914'. -- 1004184:

Processed: Re: gcc-10 should not be shipped in bookworm

Processing control commands: > unblock -1 by 978511 1008981 994108 1008979 Bug #1023666 [gcc-10] gcc-10 should not be shipped in bookworm 1023666 was blocked by: 1023677 1023674 978511 1022181 1023678 1022180 1023679 1023681 1023671 1008981 1023682 994108 1022184 1008979 1023684 1023687 1023666

Re: Results for 9.5.0 (Debian 9.5.0-3) testsuite on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu

I can be your pal doko if you add my email address to contacts and start signing your messages with pgp.

Processed: Re: Bug#1029044 closed by Debian FTP Masters (reply to Matthias Klose ) (Bug#1029044: fixed in gcc-12-cross-mipsen 3+c2)

eed to re-add them. Bug reopened No longer marked as fixed in versions gcc-12-cross-mipsen/3+c2. > found -1 3+c2 Bug #1029044 [src:gcc-12-cross-mipsen] gcc-12-cross-mipsen: source and binary version go out of sync Marked as found in versions gcc-12-cross-mipsen/3+c2. -- 1029044: https://bugs.debi

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >