Dear all,
I wrote some lines of codes like the following to verify if my gcc
could work.
"int main()
{
int a,b;
a=a+1;
b=a+2;
return 0;
}"
Then I typed "gcc-3.1 t2.c" in and it said "/usr/bin/ld:Can't open
crt1.o:no such file or directory..."
when I
Your message dated Sat, 1 Jun 2002 01:19:54 +0200
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line closing gcc-3.0 report
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 responsibili
As a short followup, I've had reports that the DAC960 driver compiles
correctly with gcc-3.0 and one report that 3.1 works as well. I've heard
mostly rumours that other known kernel driver miscompilation problems are
also fixed in gcc 3.x. Unfortunately, I do not have a DAC960 nor any of
the oth
As a short followup, I've had reports that the DAC960 driver compiles
correctly with gcc-3.0 and one report that 3.1 works as well. I've heard
mostly rumours that other known kernel driver miscompilation problems are
also fixed in gcc 3.x. Unfortunately, I do not have a DAC960 nor any of
the oth
Daniel Jacobowitz writes:
> On Sat, Jun 01, 2002 at 12:02:18AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > Michael Koch writes:
> > > Package: gcj-3.1
> > > Version: 1:3.1-2
> > > Severity: normal
> > >
> > >
> > > gcj-3.1 should provide /etc/alternatives/javac
> >
> > yes, but only if gcj supports most of
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> retitle 70743 [fixed in gcc-3.0 and gcc-3.1] [alpha] g++ -O2 optimization
> error
Bug#70743: [alpha] g++ -O2 optimization error
Changed Bug title.
> retitle 142844 [fixed in gcc-3.0 and gcc-3.1] [alpha] dead code removal in
> switch() broken
Bug#1428
On Sat, Jun 01, 2002 at 12:02:18AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Michael Koch writes:
> > Package: gcj-3.1
> > Version: 1:3.1-2
> > Severity: normal
> >
> >
> > gcj-3.1 should provide /etc/alternatives/javac
>
> yes, but only if gcj supports most of javac's options. Please feel
> free to submit
Michael Koch writes:
> Package: gcj-3.1
> Version: 1:3.1-2
> Severity: normal
>
>
> gcj-3.1 should provide /etc/alternatives/javac
yes, but only if gcj supports most of javac's options. Please feel
free to submit a gcj-wrapper, which can be used as an javac
alternative.
Matthias
--
T
Package: gcj-3.1
Version: 1:3.1-2
Severity: normal
gcj-3.1 should provide /etc/alternatives/javac
-- System Information
Debian Release: 3.0
Architecture: i386
Kernel: Linux asterix 2.4.18-k7 #1 Sun Apr 14 13:19:11 EST 2002 i686
Locale: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] (ignored: LC_ALL set)
Package: gij-3.1
Version: 1:3.1-2
Severity: normal
gij-3.1 contains the file /usr/bin/gij-wrapper-3.1. This file tries to
execute the file /usr/bin/gij-3.0 which is part of gij-3.0. It should
execute /usr/bin/gij-3.1
-- System Information
Debian Release: 3.0
Architecture: i386
Kernel: Linux ast
Package: libgcj3
Version: 1:3.1-2
Severity: normal
libgcj3 includes the file called:
/usr/lib/security/classpath.security
Unfortunately the package "classpath" includes the same file.
Either libgcj3 shouldn't include this file or both packages should
forbid the other.
-- System Information
D
>Submitter-Id: net
>Originator:Stephen Kennedy
>Organization:
>Confidential: no
>Synopsis: xmmintrin.h, _MM_TRANSPOSE4_PS is broken
>Severity: serious
>Priority: medium
>Category: c
>Class: sw-bug
>Release: 3.1 (Debian) (Debian testing/unstable)
>Environme
Package: g++-3.1
Version: 1:3.1-2
Severity: normal
in modern C++ the style is:
#include
std::assert(this_should_be_true);
however this fails to compile under 3.1 claiming:
parse error before `static_cast'
my code is not casting. The cast is coming from assert.h provided by
glibc. This may i
Package: gcj-3.1
Version: 1:3.1-2
Severity: normal
I tried to use gcj-3.1 to compile an app I'm helping with development.
Unfortunately an old libgcj2 from gcj-3.0 was installed. gcj-3.1 used
this version of libgcj installed of the version of libgcj3, which was
intalled too.
IMO gcj-3.1 should r
Your message dated Fri, 31 May 2002 11:03:51 -0400 (EDT)
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#148651: gcc 3.1-2 patch breaks binutils builds
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 t
On Fri, 31 May 2002, Jack Howarth wrote:
> Package: gcc-3.1
> Version: 3.1-2
>
> In rebuilding binutils 2.12.90.0.7-1 with gcc-3.1-2 on debian ppc sid
> I discovered that this causes binutils to have a new unexpected failure
> in its testsuite...
>
> Running
> /home/howarth/debian-binutils/bi
Package: gcc-3.1
Version: 3.1-2
In rebuilding binutils 2.12.90.0.7-1 with gcc-3.1-2 on debian ppc sid
I discovered that this causes binutils to have a new unexpected failure
in its testsuite...
Running /home/howarth/debian-binutils/binutils-2.12.90.0.7/build-tree/binutils-2
.12.90.0.7/ld/testsuit
17 matches
Mail list logo
