Gordon Sadler writes:
> Note below the order of the -L args. /usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-linux/2.95.4
> comes last... Shouldn't it be first? Maybe a change to the specs? It so
> happens I have gcc-3 and libstdc++-v3 installed in /usr/local, so I can
> compile this on a few ways:
Ok, then gcc-2.95 pi
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> forwarded 100722 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#100722: redundant error message from cpp
Noted your statement that Bug has been forwarded to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> retitle 100722 [PR preprocessor/3553] redundant error message from cpp
Bug#100722: redundant error m
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> forwarded 101371 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#101371: error in auto_ptr implementation
Noted your statement that Bug has been forwarded to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> retitle 101371 [PR libstdc++/3551] error in auto_ptr implementation
Bug#101371: error in auto_ptr im
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> forwarded 87063 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#87063: missing hash function for std::string
Noted your statement that Bug has been forwarded to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> retitle 87063 [PR libstdc++/3552] missing hash function for std::string
Bug#87063: missing hash f
Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
| This one is clearly a bug.
In which sense?
There is no standard class named hash_map<>.
-- Gaby
Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| The code below does not compile with g++ 3.0, but it seems correct
| judging by my C++ books.
No serious up-to-date C++ book can claim the code below should work.
| list > lapi;
That is incorrect: You cannot put an auto_ptr<> in a standard
contain
Matthias Klose wrote:
>
> The code below does not compile with g++ 3.0, but it seems correct
> judging by my C++ books.
>
> Wichert.
>
> #include
> #include
> using namespace std;
> int main(int, char**) {
> auto_ptr api(new int(5));
> list > lapi;
> lapi.push_back(api);
> return 0;
>
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> reassign 93708 gcc-2.95
Bug#93708: [fixed in gcc-3.0] man versus info inconsistency (-W and -Wall)
Bug reassigned from package `gcc' to `gcc-2.95'.
> reassign 62309 gobjc-2.95
Bug#62309: [fixed in 3.0] Internal compiler error: program cc1obj got fatal
>Submitter-Id: net
>Originator:Goswin Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Organization: The Debian project
>Confidential: no
>Synopsis: missing hash function for std::string
>Severity: serious
>Priority: medium
>Category: libstdc++
>Class: rejects-legal
>Release:
>Submitter-Id: net
>Originator:Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Organization: The Debian project
>Confidential: no
>Synopsis: error in auto_ptr implementation
>Severity: serious
>Priority: medium
>Category: libstdc++
>Class: rejects-legal
>Release: 3
Martin Michlmayr writes:
> Is there a good reason to keep libstdc++2.8? It has not made the FHS
> transition, is out of date, and no package depends on it.
>
> Can it be removed?
AFAICR some netscape package depended on it (or plugins for
netscape). Newer netscape packages don't depend on it
Package: ftp.debian.org
* Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [20010703 23:40]:
> Martin Michlmayr writes:
> > Is there a good reason to keep libstdc++2.8? It has not made the FHS
> > transition, is out of date, and no package depends on it.
> >
> > Ca
Is there a good reason to keep libstdc++2.8? It has not made the FHS
transition, is out of date, and no package depends on it.
Can it be removed?
(please CC me.)
Your message dated Tue, 03 Jul 2001 14:59:28 -0400
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#99523: fixed in gcc-3.0 3.0.ds9-4
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 y
Your message dated Tue, 03 Jul 2001 14:59:28 -0400
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#102620: fixed in gcc-3.0 3.0.ds9-4
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 message dated Tue, 03 Jul 2001 14:59:28 -0400
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#102271: fixed in gcc-3.0 3.0.ds9-4
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
Installing:
cpp-2.95-doc_2.95.4-0.010703_all.deb
to pool/main/g/gcc-2.95/cpp-2.95-doc_2.95.4-0.010703_all.deb
g++-2.95_2.95.4-0.010703_i386.deb
to pool/main/g/gcc-2.95/g++-2.95_2.95.4-0.010703_i386.deb
libg++2.8.1.3-dev_2.95.4-0.010703_i386.deb
to pool/main/g/gcc-2.95/libg++2.8.1.3-dev_2.95.
Your message dated Tue, 03 Jul 2001 14:58:58 -0400
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#100543: fixed in gcc-2.95 2.95.4.ds4-0.010703
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
Installing:
gcc-3.0_3.0.ds9-4.dsc
to pool/main/g/gcc-3.0/gcc-3.0_3.0.ds9-4.dsc
libstdc++3-dbg_3.0-4_i386.deb
to pool/main/g/gcc-3.0/libstdc++3-dbg_3.0-4_i386.deb
libgcc1_3.0-4_i386.deb
to pool/main/g/gcc-3.0/libgcc1_3.0-4_i386.deb
gobjc-3.0_3.0-4_i386.deb
to pool/main/g/gcc-3.0/gobjc-3.0_3
There are disparities between your recently installed upload and the
override file for the following file(s):
libstdc++3_3.0-4_i386.deb: priority is overridden from required to standard.
Either the package or the override file is incorrect. If you think
the override is correct and the package wr
20 matches
Mail list logo
