Your message dated Mon, 03 Aug 2009 23:30:38 +0100
with message-id 1249338638.419326.11383.nullmai...@kmos.homeip.net
and subject line gcc-2.95 has been removed from Debian, closing #288739
has caused the Debian Bug report #288739,
regarding [fixed in 3.x] gcc-2.95 optimizes the arithmetic
Your message dated Mon, 03 Aug 2009 23:30:38 +0100
with message-id 1249338638.533229.11385.nullmai...@kmos.homeip.net
and subject line gcc-2.95 has been removed from Debian, closing #253077
has caused the Debian Bug report #253077,
regarding gcc-2.95: internal compiler error while compiling
FYI: The status of the gcc-2.95 source package
in Debian's testing distribution has changed.
Previous version: 2.95.4.ds15-27
Current version: (not in testing)
Hint: Package not in unstable
The script that generates this mail tries to extract removal
reasons from comments in the britney
Package: gcc-2.95
Version: 2.95.4.ds15-27
Severity: serious
Justification: FTBFS on i386, very likely to fail everywhere else
Usertags: grid5000 rebuild
Hi,
During a rebuild of all packages in sid, I discovered that your package
failed to build on i386.
Relevant parts:
In file included from
FYI: The status of the gcc-2.95 source package
in Debian's testing distribution has changed.
Previous version: 2.95.4.ds15-22
Current version: 2.95.4.ds15-27
--
This email is automatically generated; [EMAIL PROTECTED] is responsible.
See http://people.debian.org/~henning/trille/ for more
Your message dated Sat, 01 Jul 2006 03:47:21 -0700
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#373098: fixed in gcc-2.95 2.95.4.ds15-26
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
Package: gcc-2.95
Version: 2.95.4.ds15-25
Severity: serious
Tags: patch
Hello GCC maintainers,
gcc-2.95 FTBFS on alpha as seen here:
http://buildd.debian.org/fetch.php?pkg=gcc-2.95%26ver=2.95.4.ds15-25%26arch=alpha%26stamp=1149582600%26file=log
While investigating, I found a simple work-around
there ? Who is going to upload a fix ?
I'm preparing an upload of -25, sorry for the delay.
It seems -25 FTBFS on alpha:
http://buildd.debian.org/fetch.php?pkg=gcc-2.95%26ver=2.95.4.ds15-25%26arch=alpha%26stamp=1149582600%26file=log
rm -f f771
stage1/xgcc -Bstage1/ -B/usr/alpha-linux-gnu/bin
.
So how do we proceed from there ? Who is going to upload a fix ?
I'm preparing an upload of -25, sorry for the delay.
It seems -25 FTBFS on alpha:
http://buildd.debian.org/fetch.php?pkg=gcc-2.95%26ver=2.95.4.ds15-25%26arch=alpha%26stamp=1149582600%26file=log
Known problem, it also
Your message dated Tue, 06 Jun 2006 00:47:17 -0700
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#350688: fixed in gcc-2.95 2.95.4.ds15-25
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
Your message dated Tue, 06 Jun 2006 00:47:17 -0700
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#336061: fixed in gcc-2.95 2.95.4.ds15-25
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
Your message dated Tue, 06 Jun 2006 00:47:17 -0700
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#336064: fixed in gcc-2.95 2.95.4.ds15-25
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
On Sun, Jun 04, 2006 at 04:38:23PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 12:03:40PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
please send a fix. I do not intend to touch this code. it's fixed in
the 3.4, 4.0 and 4.1 packages.
Hello Matthias,
Daniel
On Mon, Jun 05, 2006 at 10:55:34AM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
I see a NMU by Steinar being rejected due to bad versions.
Yes. I was going to upload another one, but was told that Thiemo would make
an upload this weekend anyhow, so I let it be. Thiemo, OTOH, told me that
Matthias Klose got
Bill Allombert wrote:
On Sun, Jun 04, 2006 at 04:38:23PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 12:03:40PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
please send a fix. I do not intend to touch this code. it's fixed in
the 3.4, 4.0 and 4.1 packages.
and
the manpage. and adding a Replaces, Provides: chill? then we can drop
the dependency of gcc-defaults on gcc-2.95.
Falk, should we just remove the alpha binaries, or is there a chance
that we can build it again?
Matthias
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject
On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 12:03:40PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
please send a fix. I do not intend to touch this code. it's fixed in
the 3.4, 4.0 and 4.1 packages.
Hello Matthias,
Daniel and Matt Krai provided a patch for this bug.
Do you plan to upload this package soon ?
In the alternative,
Please coordinate with Thiemo, he planned an upload this weekend.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 12:03:40PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
please send a fix. I do not intend to touch this code. it's fixed in
the 3.4, 4.0 and 4.1 packages.
Hello Matthias,
Daniel and
Package: gcc-2.95
Version: 1:2.95.4-24
Severity: normal
The file is_pair.c below compiled with
gcc-2.95 -O2 -S is_pair.c
results in the following in is_pair.s
movl (%ebx),%edx
testb $6,%bl
jne .L10
which I believe is incorrect for the input.
Those insns
Package: gcc-2.95
Version: 2.95.4ds15-24
Severity: serious
From my pbuilder build log:
...
stage1/xgcc -Bstage1/ -B/usr/i486-linux-gnu/bin/ -DIN_GCC -g -O2
-DHAVE_CONFIG_H `case stage1/xgcc -Bstage1/ -B/usr/i486-linux-gnu/bin/ in
*gcc*) echo -Wall -Wmissing-prototypes -Wpointer-arith
Daniel Schepler writes:
Package: gcc-2.95
Version: 2.95.4ds15-24
Severity: serious
From my pbuilder build log:
...
stage1/xgcc -Bstage1/ -B/usr/i486-linux-gnu/bin/ -DIN_GCC -g -O2
-DHAVE_CONFIG_H `case stage1/xgcc -Bstage1/ -B/usr/i486-linux-gnu/bin/ in
*gcc*) echo -Wall
PROTECTED])
by quaff.nat.blars.org (8.13.4/8.13.4/Submit) id j83JqWhq005562;
Sat, 3 Sep 2005 12:52:32 -0700
Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2005 12:52:32 -0700
From: Blars Blarson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Debian Bug Tracking System [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: gcc-2.95: ftbfs [sparc] reorg.c:384: error
0878747670==
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Lennert Buytenhek [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Debian Bug Tracking System [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: gcc-2.95: FTBFS [arm] gcc/config/arm/arm.c:556: error: invalid lvalue
in
assignment
X-Mailer: reportbug 3.17
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 18:27:43 +0200
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
tags 339703 + pending
Bug#339703: gcc-2.95: ftbfs [sparc] 1 out of 1 hunk FAILED -- saving rejects to
file include/obstack.h.r
There were no tags set.
Tags added: pending
thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance
Your message dated Fri, 18 Nov 2005 07:47:08 -0800
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#339703: fixed in gcc-2.95 2.95.4.ds15-24
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
Package: gcc-2.95
Version: 1:2.95.4-23
Severity: serious
Justification: no longer builds from source
gcc-2.95 failed to build on a sparc buildd, duplicated on my sparc
pbuilder.
if [ -x debian/patches/sparc-gcc4-fix.dpatch ]; then true; else chmod +x
debian/patches/sparc-gcc4-fix.dpatch; fi
: 7bit
From: Stefan Schmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Debian Bug Tracking System [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: gcc-2.95: kernel 2.4.31 won't compile
X-Mailer: reportbug 3.17
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 15:12:54 +0200
Message-Id: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Checker-Version
tag 323512 + fixed
tag 326506 + fixed
tag 336057 + fixed
quit
This message was generated automatically in response to a
non-maintainer upload. The .changes file follows.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 18:58:39 +
Source: gcc-2.95
Binary
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
tag 323512 + fixed
Bug#323512: FTBFS: Unable to find libstdc++.a.2.10.0
Tags were: patch
Tags added: fixed
tag 326506 + fixed
Bug#326506: gcc-2.95: ftbfs [sparc] reorg.c:384: error: invalid lvalue in
increment
Tags were: patch
Tags added: fixed
tag
Package: gcc-2.95
Version: 1:2.95.4-22
Severity: normal
make bzImage CC=gcc-2.95
..
make CFLAGS=-D__KERNEL__ -I/usr/src/linux-2.4.31/include -Wall
-Wstrict-prototypes -Wno-trigraphs -O2 -fno-strict-aliasing -fno-common
-fomit-frame-pointer -pipe -mpreferred-stack-boundary=2 -march=i686 -C
Package: gcc-2.95
Severity: serious
Tags: patch
Justification: no longer builds from source
Now that gcc 4.0 is the default system compiler, gcc-2.95 ftbfs on
arm due to an 'invalid lvalue in assignment'. The attached patch
fixes this issue.
-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing
Package: gcc-2.95
Severity: wishlist
Tags: patch
Building gcc-2.95 requires cpp-2.95, which is a circular dependency. I
don't see why that version is particular is required -- my build on armeb
in particular worked fine with cpp 3.3.
I suggest applying the attached patch to lift this (seemingly
On Thu, Oct 27, 2005 at 06:56:57PM +0200, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
The attached patch adds big-endian arm support to gcc-2.95. It's
more-or-less the same as its gcc-4.0 counterpart: teach the debian
build scripts about 'armeb', and patch gcc so that it defaults to
big-endian.
I'm curious
Package: gcc-2.95
Version: 1:2.95.4-22
Severity: serious
Justification: fails to build from source
gcc-2.95 fails to build in a current sparc sid pbuilder chroot. It
looks like it may be using gcc-4.0 to compile code that isn't clean
enough for gcc-4.0.
cc -c -DIN_GCC -DHAIFA-g
Your message dated Thu, 09 Jun 2005 20:08:29 +0200
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#310624: gcc-3.3: Old code is not compiled with gcc 2.95
(with error: initializer element is not constant)
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim
;
}
This is not my code, please don't blame me with it!
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:tmp$ gcc-2.95 test2.c
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:tmp$ gcc-3.3 test2.c
test2.c:20: error: initializer element is not constant
test2.c:20: error: (near initialization for `union_table[0]')
As you see it compiles without errors with gcc-2.95
: Package: gcc-2.95
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0-1739349750-1095366025=:99311
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2004_03_25
(1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org
X-Spam
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
tags 262717 + fixed-upstream wontfix
Bug#262717: gcc-2.95: checking for va_list assignment copy... configure: error:
no
There were no tags set.
Tags added: fixed-upstream, wontfix
retitle 262717 [fixed in 3.0] gcc-2.95: checking for va_list
Your message dated Sat, 21 May 2005 13:35:13 +0200
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug #253239: gcc-2.95 does not compile
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
tags 262717 + fixed-upstream wontfix
retitle 262717 [fixed in 3.0] gcc-2.95: checking for va_list assignment copy...
configure: error: no
thanks
Hi,
according to the reporter, this is fixed in 3.0, and we won't touch
2.95 anymore.
--
Falk
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL
tags 253077 +unreproducible
Hi,
without preprocessed source (as obtained by adding -save-temps), we
cannot do anything about this.
--
Falk
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hello,
The Debian packaging of GNU MP has, since version 4.1.2-2 (4 Apr 2003)
been built with --enable-mpfr. It turns out that MPFR has
subsequently been split off into its own project and has released
several versions later than that included in GMP.
Paul Zimmermann, one of the developers of
Hello again,
The previous email left out a couple of things.
First, MPFR is for multiple precision floating point computations.
You can check whether your package uses it by grepping for the
two header files, mpfr.h and mpf2mpfr.h. For example
grep -r mpfr.h TOP_OF_YOUR_SOURCE_TREE
Package: gcc-2.95
Hello, I am using Debian version "Woody 3.0r2", and mygcc is a link to gcc.2.95. I have a main and several subprograms in C, which I want to compile with gcc: gcc subp1.c subp1.o gcc subp2.c subp2.o ...and then Iplan to compile and link the main program: gcc mainp.
Package: gcc-2.95
Version: 1:2.95.4-22
Severity: normal
Trying to build a SE-Linux dpkg package with gcc-2.95 and this script:
===
#!/bin/sh -x
cd $HOME/russellpackages/dpkg/ \
rm -rf * \
curl -f -O http://selinux.lemuria.org/newselinux/dpkg
Colin Watson writes:
I've just managed to build perl with gcc-3.3 and -O1 on pp_ctl, pp_hot,
and pp_sort, using the patch suggested by Brendan earlier in the bug
report. I've uploaded this binary-only to unstable, although I know
that's a hack. Thanks to Vince for letting me use astonishing
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
reassign 254659 gcc
Bug#254659: [PR 16066] i386 loop strength reduction bug
Bug reassigned from package `gcc-2.95' to `gcc'.
thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Debian bug tracking system administrator
as a workaround you may want to try to disable pascal (and other
languages you don't need) in debian/rules.defs.
Thanks, it does build now!
Some issues getting it to actually install now, but I'll file a new bug
when I get more information.
Cheers,
Peter Dey
http://www.realmtech.net
Package: gcc-2.95
Version: 1:2.95.4-11woody1
Severity: normal
The attatched C program will loop infinitely when compiled with
-O2 flag.
Workaround:
1. -fno-inline
2. -fno-strength-reduce
3. use gcc-3.0
*** a.c
#include stdio.h
inline void
h1(int *p) {
printf(%p\n, p);
}
void
h
as a workaround you may want to try to disable pascal (and other
languages you don't need) in debian/rules.defs.
Peter Dey writes:
Making info file
`/home/nemesis/gcc-2.95-2.95.d.ds15/src-powerpc/gcc/p/doc/info/gcp-2.95.info
' from `gpc.texi'.
gpc.texi:4: Unknown command `documentencoding
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Package: gcc-2.95
Version: 1:2.95.4-11woody1
Severity: normal
gcc -pipe -Wall -Wstrict-prototypes -Wmissing-prototypes
-Wmissing-declarations -ggdb -Iinclude -I../include -D_REENTRANT
-D_GNU_SOURCE -O2 -march=i686 -DZAPTEL_OPTIMIZATIONS
Package: gcc-2.95
Version: 2.95.4.ds15-22
On an almost-clean system (it has gcc-3.3.3-powerpc and binutils-powerpc
installed), a powerpc cross compiler was attempted to be made, following
instructions in debian/README.cross
$ apt-get source gcc-2.95
$ sudo apt-get build-dep gcc-2.95
Package: gcc-2.95
Version: 2.95.4.ds15-22
On an almost-clean system (it has gcc-3.3.3-powerpc and binutils-powerpc
installed), a powerpc cross compiler was attempted to be made, following
instructions in debian/README.cross
$ apt-get source gcc-2.95
$ sudo apt-get build-dep gcc-2.95
$ sudo apt
Package: gcc-2.95
Version: 1:2.95.4-11woody1
Severity: normal
gcc -pipe -Wall -Wstrict-prototypes -Wmissing-prototypes
-Wmissing-declarations -ggdb -Iinclude -I../include -D_REENTRANT
-D_GNU_SOURCE -O2 -march=i686 -DZAPTEL_OPTIMIZATIONS
-DASTERISK_VERSION=\CVS-HEAD-06/06/04-21:07:41
-Joachim Baader [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Debian Bug Tracking System [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: gcc-2.95: Cannot build executables
X-Mailer: reportbug 2.43
Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2004 11:24:11 +0100
Message-Id: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60
Package: gcc-2.95
Version: 1:2.95.4-22
Severity: normal
Hi,
gcc-2.95 -O2 test.c gives the following output
/usr/lib/crt1.o(.text+0xc): In function `_start':
.../sysdeps/i386/elf/start.S:92: undefined reference to `__libc_csu_fini'
/usr/lib/crt1.o(.text+0x11):../sysdeps/i386/elf/start.S:93
Hans-Joachim Baader writes:
Package: gcc-2.95
Version: 1:2.95.4-22
Severity: normal
Hi,
gcc-2.95 -O2 test.c gives the following output
/usr/lib/crt1.o(.text+0xc): In function `_start':
.../sysdeps/i386/elf/start.S:92: undefined reference to `__libc_csu_fini'
/usr/lib/crt1.o(.text
Hans-Joachim Baader writes:
Hi,
please recheck with the current libc6 / libc6-dev.
I did that. No change. Then I tried the same program on a different
machine which has identical packages installed (including binutils and
everything that is relevant). On this machine there was no
Package: gpc
Version: 4:2.95.4-29
Severity: normal
gpc needs gcc-2.95. is there any way to get gpc work with gcc-3.3 ? i can't
find informations on the gpc project website, but this would me make able to
remove gcc-2.95 from my system.
-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
Your message dated Sun, 7 Mar 2004 00:45:43 +0100
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#236522: gpc: gcc-2.95 dependency
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
Hello,
I've got a small debian/unstable system that doesn't have too much
disk space, so I'd like to have just one compiler on it and it needs
to be gcc-2.95. However, gcc-2.95 depends on gcc, which in turn
depends on gcc-3.3 ...
Another problem for me is that I don't know what the proper way
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
reassign 153478 gcc-doc
Bug#153478: Document refered to in info should be distrubuted with package.
Bug reassigned from package `gcc-2.95-doc' to `gcc-doc'.
thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Debian bug
Package: gcc-2.95
Severity: serious
Version: 2.95.4.ds14-17
Since there is no longer any libgc6-dev package in unstable, it is now
impossible to build gcc-2.95 (at least without passing -d to
dpkg-buildpackage).
-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
Architecture: i386
Kernel
Your message dated Tue, 14 Oct 2003 14:47:27 -0400
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#200670: fixed in gcc-2.95 2.95.4.ds14-18
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
Your message dated Tue, 14 Oct 2003 14:47:27 -0400
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#215716: fixed in gcc-2.95 2.95.4.ds14-18
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
From: J.H.M. Dassen (Ray) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Debian Bug Tracking System [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: gcc-2.95: ICE on ARM
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary=NzB8fVQJ5HfG6fxh
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i
X-Reportbug-Version
Tracking System [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: gcc-2.95: gcc 2.95.4 cannot compile a bootable 2.4.17 kernel on some
Alpha machines.
X-Reportbug-Version: 1.42
X-Mailer: reportbug 1.42
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 23:47:47 -0500
Message-Id: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Package: gcc-2.95
Version
Package: gcc-2.95
Version: 1:2.95.4-17
Severity: normal
gcc-2.95 should not Build-Depend on a pure virtual package.
I suggest changing the current build-dep on awk to gawk | awk.
-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
Architecture: i386
Kernel: Linux zuul.progeny.com 2.4.20
Come to think of it, does gcc-2.95 need to depend on an Essential
package at all?
awk is in the weird position of being a virtual Essential package,
thanks to mawk.
If gawk specifically is needed, then gawk is what should B-Ded on.
--
Branden Robinson | GPG signed/encrypted mail
libncurses-dev is also a pure virtual package.
I recommend: libncurses5-dev | libncurses-dev
--
Branden Robinson | GPG signed/encrypted mail welcome
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | 1024D/9C0BCBFB
Progeny Linux Systems | D5F6 D4C9 E25B 3D37 068C
| 72E8 0F42 191A
Your message dated Sun, 6 Jul 2003 13:12:59 +0200
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#184221: gcc-2.95: gcc-2.95 PACKAGE effectively depends on
itself
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt
:43:19 +0200
Received: from james by tacitus.systems with local (Exim 3.32 #1 (Debian))
id 15nrDa-0003Kh-00
for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Mon, 01 Oct 2001 01:45:58 +0100
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: gcc-2.95-doc: misleading documentation for
-malign-{jump,loop,function}s on sparc
Mail
There are disparities between your recently accepted upload and the
override file for the following file(s):
libstdc++2.10-glibc2.2_2.95.4-17_i386.deb: package says priority is optional,
override says required.
Either the package or the override file is incorrect. If you think
the override is
Package: gcc-2.95
Version: 1:2.95.4-11woody1
Severity: normal
gcc 2.95.4's package information (I compiled it on potato) shows that it
requires gcc 2.95.3 or better in order to INSTALL, although obviously
one can bootstrap its COMPILATION from nearly any gcc.
HOWEVER, there is no 2.95.3 package
hmm, I don't seem to understand thw whole problem, but anyway: you can
get 2.95.3 packages for potato at
http://ftp-master.debian.org/~doko/gcc-2.95-potato/
Untested, use it at your own risk.
Peter T. Breuer writes:
Package: gcc-2.95
Version: 1:2.95.4-11woody1
Severity: normal
There are disparities between your recently accepted upload and the
override file for the following file(s):
cpp-2.95_2.95.4-16_i386.deb: package says priority is standard, override says
optional.
libstdc++2.10-dev_2.95.4-16_i386.deb: package says priority is standard,
override says optional.
Pigeon writes:
Hi,
Using apt-get --compile source to build gcc-2.95 on my woody system, I
find that the test suite results give around 1560 unexpected
failures for gcc.
Bad compilation? Don't think so. Running the testsuite on the
precompiled version in the woody .deb gives the same
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
reassign 178790 gcc-2.95
Bug#178790: gcc: internal error - cpp0 got fatal signal 11 - cc -O3 poll.c from
perl5.8.0
Bug reassigned from package `gcc' to `gcc-2.95'.
End of message, stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
reassign 165992 gcc-2.95
Bug#165992: gcc: __builtin_return_address doesn't work properly
Bug reassigned from package `gcc' to `gcc-2.95'.
tags 165992 + fixed
Bug#165992: gcc: __builtin_return_address doesn't work properly
There were no tags set.
Tags
On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 06:10:57PM +0100, Yann Dirson wrote:
On Mon, Oct 21, 2002 at 09:43:05PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
Yann Dirson writes:
I have several packages (e2fsprogs, bigloo) that fail to build on
m68k, apparently due to one or more gcc bug(s). Maybe that's the same
as
Richard Zidlicky writes:
On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 06:10:57PM +0100, Yann Dirson wrote:
On Mon, Oct 21, 2002 at 09:43:05PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
Yann Dirson writes:
I have several packages (e2fsprogs, bigloo) that fail to build on
m68k, apparently due to one or more gcc bug(s).
Package: gcc-2.95
Version: 1:2.95.4-15
Severity: normal
imagemagick FTBFS on ARM; see #171972 and
http://buildd.debian.org/build.php?arch=pkg=imagemagick . This is a
simplified and stripped down testcase for that issue (derived from the
imagemagick 5.5.2.5 sources).
-- System Information:
Debian
Package: gcc-2.95
Version: 1:2.95.4-11
Severity: normal
kronstadt:~$ cat test_limits.c
#include limits.h
int
main()
{
char* llong_not;
char* long_long_not;
#ifdef LLONG_MAX
llong_not = ;
#else
llong_not = _not_ ;
#endif
#ifdef LONG_LONG_MAX
long_long_not = ;
#else
long_long_not
On Mon, Oct 21, 2002 at 09:43:05PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
Yann Dirson writes:
I have several packages (e2fsprogs, bigloo) that fail to build on
m68k, apparently due to one or more gcc bug(s). Maybe that's the same
as #146006, and #89023, but I can't tell that myself.
Madkiss
Yann Dirson writes:
I have several packages (e2fsprogs, bigloo) that fail to build on
m68k, apparently due to one or more gcc bug(s). Maybe that's the same
as #146006, and #89023, but I can't tell that myself.
Madkiss suggested forcing the use of gcc-3.2. But if this compiler is
the compiler version into the soname of every library.
I think, libs compiled with gcc 2.95 just should reside in separate
directory,
say, /usr/lib/gcc-2.95-compat. Gcc 3.2.x should be run as gcc or gcc-3.2.
Gcc 2.95.x
should be run as gcc-2.95.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED
Alexei Khlebnikov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I think, libs compiled with gcc 2.95 just should reside in separate
directory, say, /usr/lib/gcc-2.95-compat. Gcc 3.2.x should be run as
gcc or gcc-3.2. Gcc 2.95.x should be run as gcc-2.95.
That will work; the question then is how to automatically
Martin,
I think the primary problem debian will have with gcc 3.2 (or
3.1.1 for that matter) is dealing with rebuilding glibc under it.
Because the gcc 3.1 fixed a bug relating to incorrectly linking in
libgcc symbols into binaries, glibc trunk and glibc-2-2-branch have
fixes to address this
Jack Howarth [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I think the primary problem debian will have with gcc 3.2 (or
3.1.1 for that matter) is dealing with rebuilding glibc under it.
Because the gcc 3.1 fixed a bug relating to incorrectly linking in
libgcc symbols into binaries, glibc trunk and
Package: gcc-2.95
Version: 1:2.95-7
Severity: important
Tags: fixed
Profiling does not work on ARM with gcc 2.95. There are two problems:
- the cc1 specs seem to be missing %{profile:-p}, so -profile doesn't
actually enable profiling code generation (though -p/-pg works)
- the generated
As a short followup, I've had reports that the DAC960 driver compiles
correctly with gcc-3.0 and one report that 3.1 works as well. I've heard
mostly rumours that other known kernel driver miscompilation problems are
also fixed in gcc 3.x. Unfortunately, I do not have a DAC960 nor any of
the
As a short followup, I've had reports that the DAC960 driver compiles
correctly with gcc-3.0 and one report that 3.1 works as well. I've heard
mostly rumours that other known kernel driver miscompilation problems are
also fixed in gcc 3.x. Unfortunately, I do not have a DAC960 nor any of
the
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
retitle 146006 [fixed in gcc-3.0] optimization (-O2) broken on m68k
Bug#146006: optimization (-O2) broken on m68k
Changed Bug title.
tags 146006 + fixed
Bug#146006: [fixed in gcc-3.0] optimization (-O2) broken on m68k
Tags added: fixed
thanks
tag 136359 + fixed
quit
This message was generated automatically in response to a
non-maintainer upload. The .changes file follows.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 23:28:40 +
Source: gcc-2.95
Binary: gcc-2.95-doc libstdc++2.10-dbg chill
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
tag 136359 + fixed
Bug#136359: g77-2.95: [ALPHA] Please rebuild libg2c.a with -mieee
Tags added: fixed
quit
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs
Matthias Klose wrote:
Adam C Powell IV writes:
reopen 136359
thanks
Thank you for your patience in this, I'm sorry to be such a pain in the
neck. But it still doesn't work, I'm still getting a SIGFPE in
f__cabs() from cabs.c in libg2c...
Okay, I think I see what's going on. In the alpha
Package: gcc-2.95
Version: 1:2.95.4-4
Hi,
The bug I am experiencing looks similar to the above bug. My example
isn't quite as self-contained.
The source package is here:
http://people.debian.org/~dwhedon/searchandrescue_0.7.19-1.diff.gz
http://people.debian.org/~dwhedon
reopen 136359
thanks
Thank you for your patience in this, I'm sorry to be such a pain in the
neck. But it still doesn't work, I'm still getting a SIGFPE in
f__cabs() from cabs.c in libg2c...
Okay, I think I see what's going on. In the alpha build log, there's
build-native/alpha-linux/libf2c
Adam C Powell IV writes:
reopen 136359
thanks
Thank you for your patience in this, I'm sorry to be such a pain in the
neck. But it still doesn't work, I'm still getting a SIGFPE in
f__cabs() from cabs.c in libg2c...
Okay, I think I see what's going on. In the alpha build log, there's
On Tue, 12 Mar 2002, Matthias Klose wrote:
please send a patch. I don't have access on an alpha and cannot easily
see the layout. Or maybe Chris could give it a try?
I can try, but am VERY tight on time this week and possibly next. Adam,
if you can look at it, please do. If you run into a
1 - 100 of 140 matches
Mail list logo
