Title: C:\홍보\sebcs2.gif
본 메일은 정보통신부 권고 사항에 의거
제목에 [광고]라 표시된 광고 메일입니다.
수신거부
버튼을 클릭하시면 수신거부처리가 이루어 집니다.
사이트운영상 문제발생시 비번
홈: http://www.ad1.ce.ro 메일 : [EMAIL PROTECTED] TEL:032)429-0053 h.p: 017-615-5808 제세졍크
본 메일은 정보통신부 권고 사항에 의거
제목에 [광고]라 표시된 광고 메일입니다.
수신거부
버튼을 클릭하시면 수
I noticed in building the current debian gcc-3.2 packages that
I was getting a couple failures that Franz Sirl wasn't seeing
on his ppclinux development machine. HJ Lu logged in and confirmed
that these tests were reporting false falures and were in fact passing.
He suggested I consider looking
On Sun, Aug 11, 2002 at 07:31:16PM +0200, Martin v. Loewis wrote:
> Jan-Hendrik Palic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > since this is my first time to get a distribution to a newer standard
> > compiler and I have no experiance with it, I want to ask, what is the
> > way to switch over to gcc-3.2?
Matthias,
Well actually it will effect builds as soon as glibc 2.2.5-14
goes in with the correct sysdeps/powerpc/libgcc-compat.S code
(which hopefully Franz will push today into glibc-2-2-branch).
The current glibc 2.2.5-13, built under gcc 2.95.4, in libc.so.6
doesn't have a dynamic symbol for
Your message dated Thu, 15 Aug 2002 22:30:45 +0200
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line nof libraries: fixed in 3.1.1-2 and gcc-3.2
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
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> severity 156662 wishlist
Bug#156662: gcc 3.2 will need Depends and Build-Depends on binutils and glibc
versions for ppc
Severity set to `wishlist'.
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Debian bug tracking
severity 156662 wishlist
thanks
these are requirements for future versions. I don't see anything which
would make the current libgcc_s.so.1 from gcc-3.0 worser than it
is. Please correct me if I am wrong.
Jack Howarth writes:
> Package: gcc-3.2
> Version: 3.2_3.2-0pre4
> Severity: grave
>
> On p
Actually Jakub sent me the following e-mail just
a few moments ago...
--
On Thu, Aug 15, 2002 at 08:28:18AM -0400, Jack Howarth wrote:
> Jakub,
>Can I assume you actually checked all the other
> arches that redhat has shipped a linux for
Jack Howarth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It is unclear how many arches have been checked at this point other
> than ia64 and ppc; I am assuming i386 must be okay.
It's an issue on i386 as well.
Regards,
Martin
Package: gcj-3.0
Version: 1:3.0.4-12
Severity: minor
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~% ls -l /usr/share/man/man1/gcj-3.0.1.gz
-rw-r--r--1 root root 6230 Jul 20 22:05
/usr/share/man/man1/gcj-3.0.1.gz
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~% dlocate /usr/share/man/man1/gcj-3.0.1.gz
gcj-3.0: /usr/share/man/man1/gcj-
Hi,
I am not filing a bug on this right now, but you should
all be aware that any arch that wants to switch to gcc 3.2
as its default compiler will need to address the following
issue. The libgcc symbols starting in gcc 3.1 are now .hidden
which means breakage of old binaries occurs when gcc 3.1
Accepted:
cpp-3.2_3.2-0pre4_sparc.deb
to pool/main/g/gcc-3.2/cpp-3.2_3.2-0pre4_sparc.deb
fastjar_3.2-0pre4_sparc.deb
to pool/main/g/gcc-3.2/fastjar_3.2-0pre4_sparc.deb
fixincludes_3.2-0pre4_sparc.deb
to pool/main/g/gcc-3.2/fixincludes_3.2-0pre4_sparc.deb
g++-3.2_3.2-0pre4_sparc.deb
to pool
Your message dated Thu, 15 Aug 2002 08:34:01 +0200
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#156487: fastjar: segfaults when trying to create jar
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
13 matches
Mail list logo
