Your message dated Sun, 28 Jul 2024 15:35:35 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#1076503: Removed package(s) from unstable
has caused the Debian Bug report #748297,
regarding [Fixed in 11] the libgnatvsn patch should be upstreamed or dropped
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim
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
Control: tags -1 + moreinfo
please address this upstream.
Can confirm that the gcc (4:12.3.0-1) from testing works correctly.
Thanks!
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Your message dated Sun, 9 Jul 2023 15:25:39 +0200
with message-id <4f136635-441c-7328-b83d-a3abcfcd8...@debian.org>
and subject line Re: gcc-12: __builtin_cpu_supports does not detect SSE2 on VIA
CPU, patch available
has caused the Debian Bug report #1039934,
regarding
Version: 12.3.0-5
at least fixed in 12.3.0-5
SSE2 support on VIA C7 CPUs, which prevent
installing software which require SSE2 support on such machines.
This has been fixed upstream with the patch to GCC 12:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100758#c25
Kindly asking to apply the patch and rebuild isa-support package.
Bugreport for
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
Your message dated Thu, 16 Feb 2023 09:34:37 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#1028455: fixed in gcc-11 11.3.0-12
has caused the Debian Bug report #1028455,
regarding gcc-11: Drop PLT revert patch on s390x
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt
Control: tags -1 + fixed-upstream confirmed patch
Hi all,
I also ran into this issue while trying to build src:linux 6.1.7-1
targeting bullseye-backports.
I can confirm that I was able to build the kernel packages successfully
using gcc-10/10.2.1-6, with only the following patch on top:
https
Processing control commands:
> tags -1 + fixed-upstream confirmed patch
Bug #1027456 {Done: Matthias Klose } [gcc-10] gcc-10: gcc
segfaults when compiling drivers/media/pci/cx18/cx18-i2c.c in Linux kernel 6.1.2
Added tag(s) patch, confirmed, and fixed-upstream.
--
1027456: ht
Package: gcc-11
Version: 11.3.0-1ubuntu1~22.04
Severity: important
Tags: patch
Dear Maintainer,
Please drop the "revert PLT changes" patch from gcc-11, the kernel has
been fixed to work correctly with the upstream/vanilla
toolchain. Separately, this revert is causing livepatch brea
HI Jonathan.
Sorry for the very late reply, but thank you for adding the patch for
gdc into gcc xtensa-lx106! In the meantime I was manually compiling
gdc, but now I am combing back to xtensa projects, and things should
be way smoother!
Thanks again.
Regards,
Witold
On Mon, 18 Jul 2022 at 13
I have also upgraded my pinebook pro and likewise can't start sway
4 hous ago on https://github.com/libffi/libffi/issues/744 icecream95
suggested af fix:
https://github.com/libffi/libffi/pull/745/commits/80d984377d8d5fc3b86786b8a99fdd8d2ee4ec4c
Fixing the size/type of the destination for the memor
sorry, forget patch in previous mail.
--
Regards,
--
Bo YU
diff -Nru gcc-12-12.2.0/debian/patches/fix-atomic-riscv64.diff
gcc-12-12.2.0/debian/patches/fix-atomic-riscv64.diff
--- gcc-12-12.2.0/debian/patches/fix-atomic-riscv64.diff1970-01-01
07:30:00.0 +0730
+++ gcc-12
's taken me far to long to deal with this, but I've just uploaded a
gcc-xtensa-lx106 package that includes support for D. For now I've left
it in the main package, if the size becomes a problem I'll split it out.
Thanks for the patch!
> On Sat, 13 Feb 2021 at 18:10, Jonathan M
Source: libiberty
Version: 20211102-1
Severity: wishlist
Tags: patch
Hi,
Attached is a patch that adds an autopkgtest to libiberty that exercises
some of its functionality. I agree to keep this up-to-date with new
releases.
Thanks for your consideration
-- System Information:
Debian Release
Hi,
Please also see
https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2022/03/msg00096.html , where it
was noticed that the conversion for this package is trivial, and builds
bit-by-bit identical binary packages.
Lucas
Source: gcc-12
Version: 12-20220222-1
Severity: normal
User: debian-al...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: alpha
X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-al...@lists.debian.org
Hello!
The patch alpha-ieee.diff no longer applies as the filename for
gcc/config/alpha/alpha.c
changed to gcc/config/alpha/alpha.cc:
Applying
Your message dated Wed, 23 Feb 2022 07:18:44 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#1004659: fixed in gcc-11 11.2.0-17
has caused the Debian Bug report #1004659,
regarding gcc-11: Please include patch to default 32-bit mode to V8+ on sparc64
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim
Source: gcc-11
Version: 11.2.0-14
Severity: normal
Tags: patch
User: debian-sp...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: sparc64
X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-sp...@lists.debian.org
Hi!
GCC upstream is defaulting to the V8+ baseline now for 32-bit mode on sparc64
[1].
As this change is not going to be backported
Source: debugedit
Version: 1:5.0-4
Severity: minor
Dear Maintainer,
Please drop the 'gcc-driver.diff' debian patch from the debugedit
source package. The patch breaks testsuite tests 6, 7, 11, 14, 18, and
23, all of which involve partial linking[1], when compiling on an
oldstable
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> tags 987787 + patch
Bug #987787 [libdebuginfod-common] libdebuginfod-common: wrong permissions on
/etc/profile.d/debuginfod.{c,}sh (and odd content)
Added tag(s) patch.
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assi
>
> > >
> > > On Fri, 22 Jan 2021 at 15:52, Witold Baryluk
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Yes, for the basic enablement I do have a draft patch (very simple):
> > > >
> > > > https://salsa.debian.org/electronics-team/t
k
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Yes, for the basic enablement I do have a draft patch (very simple):
> > >
> > > https://salsa.debian.org/electronics-team/toolchains/gcc-xtensa-lx106/-/merge_requests/1
> > >
> > > By inspection and my own manua
ests/1/diffs
>
>
> On Fri, 22 Jan 2021 at 15:52, Witold Baryluk wrote:
> >
> > Yes, for the basic enablement I do have a draft patch (very simple):
> >
> > https://salsa.debian.org/electronics-team/toolchains/gcc-xtensa-lx106/-/merge_requests/1
> >
> > By i
A simple (but not-too-simple) test is now included in MR:
https://salsa.debian.org/electronics-team/toolchains/gcc-xtensa-lx106/-/merge_requests/1/diffs
On Fri, 22 Jan 2021 at 15:52, Witold Baryluk wrote:
>
> Yes, for the basic enablement I do have a draft patch (very simple):
>
/usr/src/gcc-10/debian/README.source provides some information, but it
> is a bit tricky:
>
> user@debian:~/xtensa-d/gcc-xtensa-lx106-8$ /usr/src/gcc-10/debian/rules patch
> /usr/src/gcc-10/debian/rules:21: debian/rules.patch: No such file or directory
> make: *** No rule to make target
Yes, for the basic enablement I do have a draft patch (very simple):
https://salsa.debian.org/electronics-team/toolchains/gcc-xtensa-lx106/-/merge_requests/1
By inspection and my own manual tests/use it does work. But a sanity
test during build process would be indeed a good idea. I will take a
ebian:~/xtensa-d/gcc-xtensa-lx106-8$ /usr/src/gcc-10/debian/rules patch
/usr/src/gcc-10/debian/rules:21: debian/rules.patch: No such file or directory
make: *** No rule to make target 'debian/rules.patch'. Stop.
user@debian:~/xtensa-d/gcc-xtensa-lx106-8
Try to call make -f without changing d
Indeed. It looks like debian/patches/*.patch are not used
user@debian:~/xtensa-d/gcc-xtensa-lx106-8$ dpkg-buildpackage --no-sign
dpkg-buildpackage: info: source package gcc-xtensa-lx106
dpkg-buildpackage: info: source version 8
dpkg-buildpackage: info: source distribution unstable
dpkg
Excerpts from Witold Baryluk's message of January 21, 2021 6:52 pm:
> Hi.,
>
> I was trying to build cross-compiler for xtensa with D compiler
> enabled, and there is one things that makes that fail.
>
> https://salsa.debian.org/toolchain-team/gcc/-/blob/master/debian/rules.unpack#L154
>
> overw
Hi.,
I was trying to build cross-compiler for xtensa with D compiler
enabled, and there is one things that makes that fail.
https://salsa.debian.org/toolchain-team/gcc/-/blob/master/debian/rules.unpack#L154
overwrites gcc/doc/gcc-common.texi with minimal version (probably some
dfsg reasons).
bu
Package: gnat-9
Followup-For: Bug #748297
Hello.
The patch (now named ada-libgnat_util.diff) has improved its
integration in the GCC packaging.
Its header explains why upstream is not interested in applying it
(summary: upstream links GNAT tools with libgnat_util statically
during bootstrap
Your message dated Mon, 31 Aug 2020 12:19:11 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#968672: fixed in gcc-10 10.2.0-6
has caused the Debian Bug report #968672,
regarding libstdc++-10-dev patch for CUDA and __float128 needs update
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the
Package: libstdc++-10-dev
Version: 10.2.0-5
This patch:
https://salsa.debian.org/toolchain-team/gcc/-/blob/10.2.0-5/debian/patches/cuda-float128.diff
needs to be updated for new occurrences of `__float128` in `numbers` and
`bits/stl_algobase.h`:
```
$ grep -r _GLIBCXX_USE_FLOAT128 /usr
On Sat, 4 Apr 2020 13:37:23 +0200 Nicolas Boulenguez wrote:
> Commit 2e5e37249f09e54bb62e3ab87508e43ff709a4fb should improve the
> situation.
> It reverts the part affecting s-os_lib.adb. A GCC build produces the
> same checksum for it than 9.3.0-8 in libgnat-9, hopefully making gnat
> usable
Hello.
Commit 2e5e37249f09e54bb62e3ab87508e43ff709a4fb should improve the
situation.
It reverts the part affecting s-os_lib.adb. A GCC build produces the
same checksum for it than 9.3.0-8 in libgnat-9, hopefully making gnat
usable again by existing packaged libraries (I don't know how to test
this
On 4/3/20 9:47 PM, Nicolas Boulenguez wrote:
> Package: src:gcc-9
> Followup-For: Bug #954681
> Control: reopen -1
>
> Hello.
>
> The initial symptom is cured, but the fix lets
> debian/patches/ada-lib-info-source-date-epoch.diff modify
> gcc/ada/libgnat/s-os_lib.ad[bs].
>
> This invalidates the
Processing control commands:
> reopen -1
Bug #954681 {Done: Matthias Klose } [src:gcc-9] [gnat-9] crash
caused by SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH patch
'reopen' may be inappropriate when a bug has been closed with a version;
all fixed versions will be cleared, and you may need to re-add them.
Bu
Package: src:gcc-9
Followup-For: Bug #954681
Control: reopen -1
Hello.
The initial symptom is cured, but the fix lets
debian/patches/ada-lib-info-source-date-epoch.diff modify
gcc/ada/libgnat/s-os_lib.ad[bs].
This invalidates the checksums embedded in the .ali files of
libgnat-9, causing a failu
Processing control commands:
> retitle -1 [gnat-9] crash caused by SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH patch
Bug #954681 [src:gprbuild] gprbuild: FTBFS: ada.ads: up to date, different
timestamps but same checksum
Changed Bug title to '[gnat-9] crash caused by SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH patch' from
&#x
Your message dated Tue, 24 Mar 2020 21:39:38 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#923982: Removed package(s) from unstable
has caused the Debian Bug report #881288,
regarding gcc-7 fails to patch when old distribution detected
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the
Your message dated Sat, 04 Jan 2020 10:34:27 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#946709: fixed in gcc-9 9.2.1-22
has caused the Debian Bug report #946709,
regarding gcc-9: Backported upstream gccgo patch for hurd-i386
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has
Hello again,
The attached patch libgo_go_syscall_export_unix_test.go.diff fixes one failing
test of libgo: syscall. Maybe it could be added to the patch already submitted
patch in this bug report.
Thanks!
--- a/src/libgo/go/syscall/export_unix_test.go 2017-05-10 19:26:09.0 +0200
+++ b
Package: gcc-9
Version: 9.2.1-1
Severity: important
Tags: patch
Hello,
gccgo patches for GNU/Hurd are now committed upstream for both gcc-9 and
gcc-10.
As found out by Samuel Thibault the current code in os_hurd.go use a relative
time instead of an absolute time, see
https://gcc.gnu.org
intainers
> Changed-By: Matthias Klose
> Changes:
> gcc-8 (8.3.0-2) unstable; urgency=medium
> .
>* Fix the nvptx build.
Hi, now that go support for GNU/Hurd is available upstream with gcc-9 I
did have a look at the patches for gcc-8 (not being upstreamed yet).
Upgrading th
On 30.01.19 16:21, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
> Hi Everyone,
>
> I help maintain the Crypto++ library. László Böszörményi is our Debian
> packager/developer.
>
> László alerted us to a ppc64-le failure at
> https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=libcrypto%2B%2B&arch=ppc64el&ver=8.0.0-1
> .
>
Hi Everyone,
I help maintain the Crypto++ library. László Böszörményi is our Debian
packager/developer.
László alerted us to a ppc64-le failure at
https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=libcrypto%2B%2B&arch=ppc64el&ver=8.0.0-1
.
I believe Debian's GCC needs the fix provided at
https://gc
Your message dated Tue, 18 Dec 2018 06:49:37 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#916591: fixed in gcc-8 8.2.0-13
has caused the Debian Bug report #916591,
regarding gcc-8: Please add patch to disable broken selective scheduling on ia64
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that
Source: gcc-8
Version: 8.2.0-12
Severity: normal
Tags: patch
User: debian-i...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: ia64
Hello!
The optimization feature "selective scheduling" on ia64 is broken and
causes multiple packages failing to build from source when built with
-O3 [1].
Since gcc u
a porterbox.
>
> It may be possible to enforce the gnatlink executable name manually in
> gcc-snapshot and make it buildable by unfixed gcc-7 versions, but it
> is much work because of the mess with recursive Make invokations.
this patch calls the unversioned gcc again, and makes gcc-8-c
Hello.
The attached reproducer_installed demonstrates that
* 903694 is a bug in gcc-7, not in the source for gcc-snapshot.
* 856274 is fixed in gcc-7.
I have tried to rebuild gcc-7 with itself, replacing the former
debian/patches/ada-gcc-name.diff with the attached version.
Then reproducer_in_tr
Hello,
The recent gcc-snapshot 1:20180425-1 in sid FTBFS on GNU/Hurd due to
that one patch does not apply correctly. The problem was a comment line
in src/libgo/configure.ac was removed. The attached updated patch,
src_libgo_build.diff, fixes this problem.
Thanks!
Index: gcc-snapshot-20180425
o GNU/Hurd patches (and
upstream)"' from 'Please add the gccgo GNU/Hurd patches for gcc-8 again (and
commit'.
> tags 894080 patch
Bug #894080 [src:gcc-8] "gcc-8: Please add the gccgo GNU/Hurd patches (and
upstream)"
Ignoring request to alter tags of bug #894080 to t
Hi,
2018-03-13 16:21 Matthias Klose:
Source: libffi
Source-Version: 3.3~20180313-1
We believe that the bug you reported is fixed in the latest version of
libffi, which is due to be installed in the Debian FTP archive.
[...]
libffi (3.3~20180313-1) experimental; urgency=medium
.
* Snapshot, ta
On Mon, 2018-03-12 at 14:44 +0100, Svante Signell wrote:
> On Mon, 2018-03-12 at 13:29 +0100, Svante Signell wrote:
>
>
> > The patches really changed are only four:
> > src_libgo_runtime.diff
> > src_libgo_go_go_build_syslist.go.diff
> > src_libgo_go_runtime.diff
> > src_libgo_build.diff
>
> Co
Your message dated Tue, 13 Mar 2018 15:21:21 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#892217: fixed in libffi 3.3~20180313-1
has caused the Debian Bug report #892217,
regarding [PATCH] libffi: Please add support for the riscv64 architecture
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that
On Mon, 2018-03-12 at 13:29 +0100, Svante Signell wrote:
> The patches really changed are only four:
> src_libgo_runtime.diff
> src_libgo_go_go_build_syslist.go.diff
> src_libgo_go_runtime.diff
> src_libgo_build.diff
Correction: five:
add-gnu-to-libgo-headers.diff
On 2018-03-06 22:31, Karsten Merker wrote:
> Source: libffi
> Version: 3.3~20180131
> Severity: wishlist
> X-Debbugs-CC: debian-ri...@lists.debian.org
> Tags: patch
> User: debian-ri...@lists.debian.org
> Usertags: riscv64
>
> Hello,
>
> we are in the process o
Source: libffi
Version: 3.3~20180131
Severity: wishlist
X-Debbugs-CC: debian-ri...@lists.debian.org
Tags: patch
User: debian-ri...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: riscv64
Hello,
we are in the process of bootstrapping a Debian port for the
riscv64 architecture (https://wiki.debian.org/RISC-V). The
Your message dated Sun, 07 Jan 2018 09:51:24 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#885937: fixed in gcc-7 7.2.0-19
has caused the Debian Bug report #885937,
regarding gcc-7: Please add patch to strip -z,defs from linker options for
internal libunwind
to be marked as done.
This means that
On 31.12.2017 16:05, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> Source: gcc-7
> Version: 7.2.0-18
> Severity: normal
> Tags: patch
> User: debian-i...@lists.debian.org
> Usertags: ia64
>
> Hi!
>
> As a follow-up for #885931 which enables gcc's internal libunwind
>
Source: gcc-7
Version: 7.2.0-18
Severity: normal
Tags: patch
User: debian-i...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: ia64
Hi!
As a follow-up for #885931 which enables gcc's internal libunwind
when cross-building gcc for ia64, we need this additional patch
by James Clarke which strips "-z,defs
Your message dated Tue, 05 Dec 2017 15:04:45 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#883433: fixed in gcc-7 7.2.0-17
has caused the Debian Bug report #883433,
regarding gcc-7: Please include patch to implement __builtin_trap() on SH
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the
Source: gcc-7
Version: 7.2.0-16
Severity: important
Tags: patch
User: debian-sup...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: sh4
Hi!
Both src:linux and src:glibc currently FTBFS on sh4 with gcc-7 because
the compiler is missing the implementation of __builtin_trap(). Upstream
has suggested a patch in [1
Hello,
Svante Signell, on lun. 06 nov. 2017 16:36:39 +0100, wrote:
> Another issue is that /proc/self/exe has to return an absolute path for the
> built program go-7 to execute properly. This is solved by a pending patch for
> glibc in Debian and will be available in the next upload of g
On Thu, 2017-11-16 at 14:12 +0100, Svante Signell wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-11-15 at 21:54 +0100, Svante Signell wrote:
> >
>
> Attached is an updated patch for gcc-7. An updated patch for gcc-8 will follow
> shortly when I have build tested gcc-8 go on both Linux and Hurd.
>
c-8 you asked me for? You wrote that gcc-7 is not
> of
> interest and I should concentrate on gcc-8.
>
> Again, I'm really sorry. Will fix this tomorrow hopefully.
>
> Thanks!
Attached is an updated patch for gcc-7. An updated patch for gcc-8 will follow
shortly when
On Wed, 2017-11-15 at 21:40 +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> On 06.11.2017 16:36, Svante Signell wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Attached are patches to enable gccgo to build properly on Debian
> > GNU/Hurd on gcc-7 (7-7.2.0-12).
>
> sysinfo.go:6744:7: error: redefinition of 'SYS_IOCTL'
> const SYS_IOCTL =
On 06.11.2017 16:36, Svante Signell wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Attached are patches to enable gccgo to build properly on Debian
> GNU/Hurd on gcc-7 (7-7.2.0-12).
sysinfo.go:6744:7: error: redefinition of 'SYS_IOCTL'
const SYS_IOCTL = _SYS_ioctl
^
sysinfo.go:6403:7: note: previous definition of 'SYS
* add-gnu-to-libgo-headers.diff: Add gnu to libgo headers for build.
* add-gnu-to-libgo-test-headers.diff: Add gnu to libgo headers for tests.
* src_libgo_go_go_build_syslist.go.diff: Add gnu to the goosList.
* src_libgo_go_syscall_syscall_gnu_test.go.diff: gnu-specific file for tests
involving str
* src_libgo_build.diff: configure.ac, Makefile.* and shell script patches.
* src_libgo_go_crypto.diff: Certificate go files.
* src_libgo_go_net.diff: OS-specific net go files.
* src_libgo_go_os.diff: OS-specific os go files.
* src_libgo_go_runtime.diff: OS-specific runtime go files.
* src_libgo_go_
built program go-7 to execute properly. This is solved by a pending patch for
glibc in Debian and will be available in the next upload of glibc-2.24.
Adding to this, the executable ./build/gotools/go does work displaying the help
text, but e.g. ./build/gotools/go env exits with a SIGILL: Illegal
Package: gcc-7
Version: 7.2.0-12
Severity: normal
Dear Maintainer,
When gcc-7 detects one of many outdated distributions, it attempts to apply the
"gcc-hash-style-both" patch,
rather than "gcc-hash-style-gnu". gcc-hash-style-both is sufficiently crufty
that it fails
On 06.11.2017 16:36, Svante Signell wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Attached are patches to enable gccgo to build properly on Debian
> GNU/Hurd on gcc-7 (7-7.2.0-12).
Svante, please could you base your patches on upstream trunk, or the gcc-8
packages from experimental, which follow upstream trunk until gcc-8 br
* add-gnu-to-libgo-headers.diff: Add gnu to libgo headers for build.
* add-gnu-to-libgo-test-headers.diff: Add gnu to libgo headers for tests.
* src_libgo_go_go_build_syslist.go.diff: Add gnu to the goosList.
* src_libgo_go_syscall_syscall_gnu_test.go.diff: gnu-specific file for tests
involving str
* src_libgo_build.diff: configure.ac, Makefile.* and shell script patches.
* src_libgo_go_crypto.diff: Certificate go files.
* src_libgo_go_net.diff: OS-specific net go files.
* src_libgo_go_os.diff: OS-specific os go files.
* src_libgo_go_runtime.diff: OS-specific runtime go files.
* src_libgo_go_
program go-7 to execute properly. This is solved by a pending patch for
glibc in Debian and will be available in the next upload of glibc-2.24.
Adding to this, the executable ./build/gotools/go does work displaying the help
text, but e.g. ./build/gotools/go env exits with a SIGILL: Illegal
Tags: patch pending
User: debian-powe...@lists.debian.org
Control: tags -1 patch
--
Eric Dorland
43CF 1228 F726 FD5B 474C E962 C256 FBD5 0022 1E93
diff -ruN cloog-ppl-0.16.1.old/debian/control cloog-ppl-0.16.1/debian/control
--- cloog-ppl-0.16.1.old/debian/control 2017-08-10 11:21:14.124652961 -0400
+++ cloog-ppl-0.16.1/debian/control 2017-08-10 11
Processing control commands:
> tags -1 patch
Bug #865154 [src:cloog-ppl] cloog-ppl: please build-depend on automake, not
obsolete automake1.11
Added tag(s) patch.
--
865154: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=865154
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org w
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> tags 862756 - patch
Bug #862756 [src:gcc-7] gcc-7 cross compiler build: generated dependencies on
multilib libcs unsatisfiable
Removed tag(s) patch.
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
--
862756:
On 27.06.2017 22:02, Nicolas Boulenguez wrote:
> Package: gnat-5,gnat-6,gnat-7
> Followup-For: Bug #856274
>
>> On gnat-7/7.1.0-7, the work-around has no effect.
>> ARCH-gcc-7-7 is searched but not found.
>
>> what do you mean? that this doesn't work for the cross compilers?
>
> No, simply that
Package: gnat-5,gnat-6,gnat-7
Followup-For: Bug #856274
> On gnat-7/7.1.0-7, the work-around has no effect.
> ARCH-gcc-7-7 is searched but not found.
> what do you mean? that this doesn't work for the cross compilers?
No, simply that on a fresh (x86_64-linux-gnu) chroot:
# apt-get install gnat-
On 26.06.2017 19:29, Nicolas Boulenguez wrote:
> Package: gnat-5,gnat-6,gnat-7
> Followup-For: Bug #856274
>
> On gnat-7/7.1.0-7, the work-around has no effect.
> ARCH-gcc-7-7 is searched but not found.
what do you mean? that this doesn't work for the cross compilers?
Matthias
Package: gnat-5,gnat-6,gnat-7
Followup-For: Bug #856274
On gnat-7/7.1.0-7, the work-around has no effect.
ARCH-gcc-7-7 is searched but not found.
Package: gnat-5,gnat-6,gnat-7
Followup-For: Bug #856274
The workaround for 814978 is a symbolic link
/usr/bin/gcc-7-7 -> gcc-7
Is it still required?
Package: gnat-5,gnat-6,gnat-7
Followup-For: Bug #856274
>From this bug log and title, it is not clear for me whether
7-20170314-1 fixes the issue: ada-gcc-name.diff modifies gnatmake so
that it calls gcc-BV.
Are the other problems with tests fixed by these changes?
Should this bug be closed beca
I see upstream has a patch for gcc-6 .
Would it be possible to import it ?
Thanks,
F.
pgpUXqJcL52Zf.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Your message dated Sat, 04 Mar 2017 21:08:19 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#835777: fixed in gcc-5-cross 25
has caused the Debian Bug report #835777,
regarding gcc-5-cross: FTBFS: patch fails to apply
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt
On 27.02.2017 14:47, Svante Signell wrote:
> 1) In ada-acats.diff the gcc version should be gcc-5 not gcc-6:
> -+echo exec /usr/bin/gnatchop --GCC=gcc-6 '$*' >> host_gnatchop
> ++echo exec /usr/bin/gnatchop --GCC=gcc-5 '$*' >> host_gnatchop
oops, fixed in the VCS.
On Mon, 2017-02-27 at 12:27 +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Package: gnat-5,gnat-6,gnat-7
> Severity: important
> X-Debbugs-CC: Svante Signell
>
> The recent gcc-5 upload with the ada-gcc-name patch removed results in build
> failures, because gnatmake now calls /usr/bin/gcc (w
Package: gnat-5,gnat-6,gnat-7
Severity: important
X-Debbugs-CC: Svante Signell
The recent gcc-5 upload with the ada-gcc-name patch removed results in build
failures, because gnatmake now calls /usr/bin/gcc (which points to gcc-6), and
doesn't find an installed gnat1 binary [1]. So I think
Your message dated Fri, 30 Dec 2016 04:48:39 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#846872: fixed in gcc-7 7-20161230-1
has caused the Debian Bug report #846872,
regarding gcc-7: FTBFS on m68k - fails to apply ada-m68k.diff patch
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the
On 12/22/2016 12:36 PM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> Could you please remove the ada-m68k.diff patch from the gcc-7
> source package now. It's existence still breaks the build, it has
> been merged upstream now as already discussed.
>
> Ada is currently is disabled on gc
Hi Matthias!
On 12/05/2016 12:42 PM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
>> gcc upstream just merged the patch after I had to modify it [1].
>>
>>
>>> [1] https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/gcc?view=revision&revision=243247
>
> Ah, there is no gcc-7 branch yet. So we
Samuel Thibault, on Mon 19 Dec 2016 00:25:35 +0100, wrote:
> as the attached patch does, which should really be applied or done
> any other way.
Or rather this patch, which makes it more like the test above.
Matthias, I'm committing this to Debian's gcc-6, along the other go
pat
that's sheer luck :) This should probably be turned
into e.g.:
if (!filename || stat (filename, &s) < 0 || s.st_size < 1024)
filename = NULL;
as the attached patch does, which should really be applied or done
any other way.
Then calling go-6 brings this:
fatal error: lib
On Wed, 2016-12-07 at 17:25 +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> Svante Signell, on Wed 07 Dec 2016 15:32:31 +0100, wrote:
> > On Wed, 2016-12-07 at 15:08 +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > > Ok, but then I'd say move the function which change to a separate file,
> > > so that the other functions are kep
1 - 100 of 592 matches
Mail list logo
