there is a workaround (gcc-3.2), therefore the severity could be
reduced, otoh it's generating wrong code. please could you check, if
this one is reproducible in gcc-3.4?
The last awk sucessfully built on m68k is the 3.3 branch 20040728.
Matthias
Fumitoshi UKAI writes:
> clone 278135 -
* Brian Sutherland ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [041026 22:55]:
> I have filed bug 278411 against schoolbell, one of the packages I
> maintain.
>
> For the reason in the bugreport, I don't think it should be released
> with sarge. (Sorry for allowing it through, but I only found out about
> the issue today
I have filed bug 278411 against schoolbell, one of the packages I
maintain.
For the reason in the bugreport, I don't think it should be released
with sarge. (Sorry for allowing it through, but I only found out about
the issue today)
P.S. Please CC me as I am not subscribed.
--
Brian Sutherland
clone 278135 -1
reassign -1 gcc-3.3
retitle -1 gcc-3.3: __fixunsdfdi problem on m68k
severity -1 critical
retitle 278135 gawk: FTBFS on m68k: clobber.awk test fails with "internal
error" with gcc-3.3
thanks
I confirm RC Bug#278135 on crest.debian.org's dchroot unstable, so I
track down it with he
* Martin Schulze ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [041026 16:25]:
> Colin Watson wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 26, 2004 at 03:14:10PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
> > > Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> > > > Hi, Ben Burton wrote:
> > > > > The fixed package version will be 1:1.3.2-1.sarge.2
> > > >
> > > > That's a version
Colin Watson wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 26, 2004 at 03:14:10PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
> > Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> > > Hi, Ben Burton wrote:
> > > > The fixed package version will be 1:1.3.2-1.sarge.2
> > >
> > > That's a version number which looks like a binary NMU, which AFAIK causes
> > > prob
On Tue, Oct 26, 2004 at 03:14:10PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
> Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> > Hi, Ben Burton wrote:
> > > The fixed package version will be 1:1.3.2-1.sarge.2
> >
> > That's a version number which looks like a binary NMU, which AFAIK causes
> > problems.
>
> We would use 1:1.3.2-1s
Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> Hi, Ben Burton wrote:
>
> > The fixed package version will be 1:1.3.2-1.sarge.2
>
> That's a version number which looks like a binary NMU, which AFAIK causes
> problems.
We would use 1:1.3.2-1sarge2 for a security update, but either should
be fine.
Matthias, where woul
Hi, Ben Burton wrote:
> The fixed package version will be 1:1.3.2-1.sarge.2
That's a version number which looks like a binary NMU, which AFAIK causes
problems.
IMHO you should lose at least one of the dots.
--
Matthias Urlichs | {M:U} IT Design @ m-u-it.de | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
9 matches
Mail list logo