Philippe Troin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Mon, Apr 23, 2001 at 01:42:43PM -0700, Philippe Troin wrote:
> > > Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >
> > > > On Mon, Apr 23, 2001 at 09:18:26PM +0100, Philip Blundell wrote:
> > > > > >Is the
Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Apr 23, 2001 at 01:42:43PM -0700, Philippe Troin wrote:
> > Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > On Mon, Apr 23, 2001 at 09:18:26PM +0100, Philip Blundell wrote:
> > > > >Is there any mips or arm machine I could log into which has 2.95
On Mon, Apr 23, 2001 at 01:42:43PM -0700, Philippe Troin wrote:
> Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Mon, Apr 23, 2001 at 09:18:26PM +0100, Philip Blundell wrote:
> > > >Is there any mips or arm machine I could log into which has 2.95.4
> > > >installed so that I could check the alep
Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Apr 23, 2001 at 09:18:26PM +0100, Philip Blundell wrote:
> > >Is there any mips or arm machine I could log into which has 2.95.4
> > >installed so that I could check the aleph package ?
> >
> > I can do you an account on an arm machine. Send me a
On Mon, Apr 23, 2001 at 09:18:26PM +0100, Philip Blundell wrote:
> >Is there any mips or arm machine I could log into which has 2.95.4
> >installed so that I could check the aleph package ?
>
> I can do you an account on an arm machine. Send me a username and either a
> crypted password or an SS
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> retitle 94981 No help available for Vim
Bug#94981: [fixed in 3.0] %zd printf spec generates warning, even in c9x mode
Changed Bug title.
(By the way, that Bug is currently marked as done.)
> retitle 94891 [fixed in 3.0] %zd printf spec generates warnin
>Is there any mips or arm machine I could log into which has 2.95.4
>installed so that I could check the aleph package ?
I can do you an account on an arm machine. Send me a username and either a
crypted password or an SSH public key. Dunno about mips.
p.
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> retitle 93708 [fixed in gcc-3.0] man versus info inconsistency (-W and -Wall)
Bug#93708: gcc: man versus info inconsistency (-W and -Wall)
Changed Bug title.
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Darren Benham
(
Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Apr 23, 2001 at 09:37:09AM -0700, Philippe Troin wrote:
> > Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > On Sun, Apr 22, 2001 at 11:31:18PM -0700, Philippe Troin wrote:
> > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~% gcc -o foo foo.cpp -lstdc++
> > >
> > > IMO
Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ben Collins writes:
> > On Sun, Apr 22, 2001 at 11:31:18PM -0700, Philippe Troin wrote:
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~% gcc -o foo foo.cpp -lstdc++
> >
> > IMO, you should use:
> >
> > % g++ foo foo.cpp
> >
> >
> > ...instead. There are a lot mo
Ben Collins writes:
> On Sun, Apr 22, 2001 at 11:31:18PM -0700, Philippe Troin wrote:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~% gcc -o foo foo.cpp -lstdc++
>
> IMO, you should use:
>
> % g++ foo foo.cpp
>
>
> ...instead. There are a lot more things going on when using g++ other
> than adding -lstdc++.
retitle 93708 [fixed in gcc-3.0] man versus info inconsistency (-W and -Wall)
thanks
Alexandre Duret-Lutz writes:
> Package: gcc
> Version: 1:2.95.3-7
> Severity: normal
>
> Hi,
>
> The man page for gcc reads
>
> [...]
>-W Print extra warning messages for these events:
>
Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, Apr 22, 2001 at 11:31:18PM -0700, Philippe Troin wrote:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~% gcc -o foo foo.cpp -lstdc++
>
> IMO, you should use:
>
> % g++ foo foo.cpp
This brings the same result as 'gcc -o foo foo.cpp -lstdc++': crash.
> ...instead. There
On Mon, Apr 23, 2001 at 09:37:09AM -0700, Philippe Troin wrote:
> Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Sun, Apr 22, 2001 at 11:31:18PM -0700, Philippe Troin wrote:
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~% gcc -o foo foo.cpp -lstdc++
> >
> > IMO, you should use:
> >
> > % g++ foo foo.cpp
>
> This
Simon Richter writes:
> On Wed, 18 Apr 2001, Richard Hirst wrote:
>
> > > The idea is to see whether m68k can live without gcc 2.7.2, since we seem
> > > to be the last platform depending on it and the maintainer wants to drop
> > > the package.
>
> > Oh, sorry - I missed that point. Cert
Package: gcj-3.0
Version: 1:3.0-0pre010403
Severity: normal
Observe:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/test$ cat Interface.java
package foo1;
public interface Interface {
interface Inner {
void foo();
}
}
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/test$ cat Test.java
package foo2;
import foo1.*;
public class Te
On Sun, Apr 22, 2001 at 11:31:18PM -0700, Philippe Troin wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~% gcc -o foo foo.cpp -lstdc++
IMO, you should use:
% g++ foo foo.cpp
...instead. There are a lot more things going on when using g++ other
than adding -lstdc++. If this works for you, then I suggest closing the
exaple below compiled witch -pedantic makes :
$ g++-3.0 -pedantic foo.cc
foo.cc: In function `int foo()':
foo.cc:8: parse error before `;' token
w/o -pedantic it is ok.
#include
using namespace std;
template
int foo()
{
vector::iterator i; /* this line: parse error before ';' */
}
Package: libstdc++2.10-glibc2.2
Version: 1:2.95.3-8
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~% cat foo.cpp
#include
class EX
{
public:
EX() { write(2,"XCR\n",4); }
virtual ~EX() { write(2, "XD\n", 3); }
EX(const EX&) { write(2, "XCP\n", 4);
19 matches
Mail list logo
