Bug#155002: marked as done (SuperH supports)

Your message dated Fri, 06 Sep 2002 18:32:28 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#155002: fixed in gcc-defaults 1.2 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 now y

Bug#156968: marked as done (Hurd uses gcc 3.2)

Your message dated Fri, 06 Sep 2002 18:32:28 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#156968: fixed in gcc-defaults 1.2 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 now y

gcc-3.1_3.1.1ds3-3_i386.changes ACCEPTED

Accepted: gcc-3.1_3.1.1ds3-3.diff.gz to pool/main/g/gcc-3.1/gcc-3.1_3.1.1ds3-3.diff.gz gcc-3.1_3.1.1ds3-3.dsc to pool/main/g/gcc-3.1/gcc-3.1_3.1.1ds3-3.dsc libstdc++4_3.1.1-3_i386.deb to pool/main/g/gcc-3.1/libstdc++4_3.1.1-3_i386.deb Announcing to debian-devel-changes@lists.debian.org Tha

gcc-3.1 override disparity

There are disparities between your recently accepted upload and the override file for the following file(s): libstdc++4_3.1.1-3_i386.deb: section is overridden from oldlibs to base. Either the package or the override file is incorrect. If you think the override is correct and the package wrong p

gcc-defaults_1.2_i386.changes ACCEPTED

Accepted: chill_2.95.4-17_i386.deb to pool/main/g/gcc-defaults/chill_2.95.4-17_i386.deb cpp_2.95.4-17_i386.deb to pool/main/g/gcc-defaults/cpp_2.95.4-17_i386.deb g++_2.95.4-17_i386.deb to pool/main/g/gcc-defaults/g++_2.95.4-17_i386.deb g77_2.95.4-17_i386.deb to pool/main/g/gcc-defaults/g77

Bug#157416: _Pragma() from macros - bug

Steve Ellcey wrote:- > > I am confused by the new test gcc.dg/cpp/_Pragma4.c that was added by > this patch and wonder if I am missing something or if there is a typo in > the test. > > I believe the test is searching for the string '#pragma bat' (bat with a > t) to see if the tests succeeded, b

Bug#157416: _Pragma() from macros - bug

I am confused by the new test gcc.dg/cpp/_Pragma4.c that was added by this patch and wonder if I am missing something or if there is a typo in the test. I believe the test is searching for the string '#pragma bat' (bat with a t) to see if the tests succeeded, but how would that appear in the outp

Bug#159838: gcc-3.2: reports multiple symbol definitions on the wrong line

Package: gcc-3.2 Version: 1:3.2.1-0pre1 Severity: normal (I am not sure whether this is a bug in gcc or binutils) [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/tmp$ cat foo.c int x = 0; [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/tmp$ cat bar.c int x = 0; void foo(void) {} [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/tmp$ gcc -shared -g -o foo.so foo.c bar.c /tmp/cc0w

Bug#159804: Suppliment (printf("%#Xll",x) can be funny)

If BUG 159804 is stupid question rather than a BUG for the maintainer , please treat this as wishlist for the missing warning. (I think it is a bug.) Osamu -- +++ + Osamu Aoki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> @ Cupertino, CA USA +