"reference to a char *" should read "reference to a char * on the stack"
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Hi there.
It turns out that the problem was in the debug version - it shouldn't have
worked.
Further, the compiler should have noticed a reference to a stack variable being
returned,
but that didn't happen either.
It's still my bad though. Sorry if I've wasted your time.
Maybe this problem ca
I'll work on trying to put together a simpler test case.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Philip Ashmore writes:
> It appears that gcc-4.6 (and clang for that matter) make some dodgy
> decisions about what appear to be references to temporaries created
> during optimization.
You don't seem to have addressed the issue raised by Matthias Klose in
the bug thread though: specifically, wh
Hi there.
I believe I've tracked down the problem.
I've published new versions of v3c(1.9.0-03), treedb(1.1.0-01) and
meta-treedb(1.3.0-02) in SourceForge, which gets around this problem.
It appears that gcc-4.6 (and clang for that matter) make some dodgy
decisions about what appear to be ref
- does it build using gcc-snapshot, gcc-4.5 or gcc-4.4?
I have gcc and g++ locked to version 4:4.4.5-1, where they work.
time sh build.sh (from Message 12 above
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=630441#12)
...
real6m52.589s
user5m37.477s
sys 0m31.150s
On 09/04/2011 07:35 PM, Philip Ashmore wrote:
On 04/09/11 17:40, Matthias Klose wrote:
On 09/04/2011 06:24 PM, Philip Ashmore wrote:
- if you have a working and a non-working build, can you try
The build fails due to a test failure caused by the compiler generating
incorrect code.
If we want t
On 04/09/11 17:40, Matthias Klose wrote:
On 09/04/2011 06:24 PM, Philip Ashmore wrote:
- if you have a working and a non-working build, can you try
The build fails due to a test failure caused by the compiler generating
incorrect code.
If we want to fix this bug then working around it won't hel
On 09/04/2011 06:24 PM, Philip Ashmore wrote:
- if you have a working and a non-working build, can you try
The build fails due to a test failure caused by the compiler generating
incorrect code.
If we want to fix this bug then working around it won't help.
you do misunderstand. somebody has to
On 04/09/11 15:21, Matthias Klose wrote:
tag 630441 moreinfo help
thanks
On 07/21/2011 12:01 PM, Philip Ashmore wrote:
Sorry if I wasn't clear.
All the tests pass in the debug (-0O) build.
I've got gcc/g++ 4.4.6-6 installed and all the tests pass in debug
and release
mode.
This is a problem
tag 630441 moreinfo help
thanks
On 07/21/2011 12:01 PM, Philip Ashmore wrote:
Sorry if I wasn't clear.
All the tests pass in the debug (-0O) build.
I've got gcc/g++ 4.4.6-6 installed and all the tests pass in debug and release
mode.
This is a problem with the g++ 4.6 release (-03) optimization.
I just finished running the tests inside a fresh wheezy 32 bit chroot.
The results are the same.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Sorry if I wasn't clear.
All the tests pass in the debug (-0O) build.
I've got gcc/g++ 4.4.6-6 installed and all the tests pass in debug and
release mode.
This is a problem with the g++ 4.6 release (-03) optimization.
Philip
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.
On 07/21/2011 02:26 AM, Philip Ashmore wrote:
> This fails with g++-4.6.1-4 from testing at the same place.
>
> I've updated the packages in sourceforge, so no patches are needed.
> I've attached a revised build.sh which runs the tests with the
> current versions.
>
> I was about to dive into a r
This fails with g++-4.6.1-4 from testing at the same place.
I've updated the packages in sourceforge, so no patches are needed.
I've attached a revised build.sh which runs the tests with the
current versions.
I was about to dive into a rant about "why didn't you try this before
releasing gcc/g++
15 matches
Mail list logo
