On Fri, May 30, 2003 at 11:28:18PM +0200, Yann Dirson wrote:
> Package: gcj-3.3
> Version: 1:3.3-2
> Severity: normal
>
> Build log is quite short:
>
> | tau-2.12.8/tools/src/jRacy$ LC_ALL=C gcj-wrapper-3.3 *.java
> | DB.java:9: warning: Discouraged redundant use of `public' modifier in
> decla
Your message dated Sat, 31 May 2003 18:48:12 -0400
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#193401: fixed in gcc-3.2 1:3.2.3ds9-3
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 n
Your message dated Sat, 31 May 2003 18:48:12 -0400
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#193207: fixed in gcc-3.2 1:3.2.3ds9-3
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 n
Your message dated Sat, 31 May 2003 18:48:12 -0400
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#192634: fixed in gcc-3.2 1:3.2.3ds9-3
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 n
There are disparities between your recently accepted upload and the
override file for the following file(s):
g++-3.2_3.2.3-3_i386.deb: package says priority is standard, override says
optional.
libstdc++5-dev_3.2.3-3_i386.deb: package says priority is standard, override
says optional.
gcc-3.2-ba
Accepted:
cpp-3.2-doc_3.2.3-3_all.deb
to pool/main/g/gcc-3.2/cpp-3.2-doc_3.2.3-3_all.deb
cpp-3.2_3.2.3-3_i386.deb
to pool/main/g/gcc-3.2/cpp-3.2_3.2.3-3_i386.deb
g++-3.2_3.2.3-3_i386.deb
to pool/main/g/gcc-3.2/g++-3.2_3.2.3-3_i386.deb
g77-3.2-doc_3.2.3-3_all.deb
to pool/main/g/gcc-3.2/g77-
Accepted:
cpp-3.2_3.2.3-3_hppa.deb
to pool/main/g/gcc-3.2/cpp-3.2_3.2.3-3_hppa.deb
g++-3.2_3.2.3-3_hppa.deb
to pool/main/g/gcc-3.2/g++-3.2_3.2.3-3_hppa.deb
g77-3.2_3.2.3-3_hppa.deb
to pool/main/g/gcc-3.2/g77-3.2_3.2.3-3_hppa.deb
gcc-3.2-base_3.2.3-3_hppa.deb
to pool/main/g/gcc-3.2/gcc-3.2-
Rejected: libstdc++5_3.2.3-3_arm.deb: old version (1:3.3-2) in unstable >= new
version (1:3.2.3-3) targeted at unstable.
Rejected: libstdc++5_3.2.3-3_arm.deb: old version (1:3.3-2) in testing >= new
version (1:3.2.3-3) targeted at unstable.
===
If you don't understand why your files were reje
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> reassign 194339 gcc-3.3
Bug#194339: libc6-dev: __thread is a reserved keyword in gcc-3.3
Bug reassigned from package `libc6-dev' to `gcc-3.3'.
> retitle 194339 __thread problem with woody backports of gcc 3.3
Bug#194339: libc6-dev: __thread is a reserv
reassign 194339 gcc-3.3
retitle 194339 __thread problem with woody backports of gcc 3.3
thanks
I had to solve the same problem in my backport of gcc 3.3 to woody [1].
There are no changes to the glibc packages in woody needed, gcc already
includes a fix. The problem is that the build of the Debi
failures4
# of unexpected successes 1
# of expected failures 68
# of unsupported tests 15
/build/packages/gcc/snap/gcc-snapshot-20030531/build/gcc/testsuite/../g++
version 3.4 20030531 (experimental)
=== g77 tests ===
Running target unix
FAIL: g77.f
Tobias Hunger writes:
> Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I am able to remove gcc-3.2. Mind to explain why you think these are a mess?
>
> Now that I retied this might be a problem with xlibmesa-glu-dev: That depends
> on libstdc++5-dev, so that can't get removed. Because of that g++ c
Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am able to remove gcc-3.2. Mind to explain why you think these are a mess?
Now that I retied this might be a problem with xlibmesa-glu-dev: That depends
on libstdc++5-dev, so that can't get removed. Because of that g++ cannot get
removed either. Should
>Submitter-Id: net
>Originator:Dheeraj Reddy
>Organization: Georgia Tech
>Confidential: no
>Synopsis: An expected segfault doesn't occur
>Severity: serious
>Priority: medium
>Category: c
>Class: accepts-illegal
>Release: 3.3 (Debian) (Debian testing/unstabl
Tobias Hunger writes:
> Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > This is ok. g++-3.2 depends on libstd++5-dev, g++-3.3 depends on
> > libstdc++5-3.3-dev. Both share the same shared library. the soname
> > didn't change.
>
> It's not OK: You can't remove gcc 3.2 since the dependancies are a me
Your message dated Sat, 31 May 2003 21:16:13 +0200
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#195586: libstdc++5-dev is older than libstdc++5
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 ca
built without ICE with today's gcc-snapshot stage1 compiler.
James Troup writes:
> Package: gcc-3.3
> Version: 3.3-2
> Severity: important
>
> This is a regression from 2.95 and 3.2; there doesn't seem to be a
> recent gcc-snapshot package to test with. Compiling with -O1 makes
> the ICE go away
Package: libstdc++5-dev
Version: 1:3.2.3-2
Severity: normal
I hate libstdc++5 installed which is of version 3.3-2 while libstdc++5-dev is
of version 3.2.3-2. I think that is not the way it should be.
-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
Architecture: i386
Kernel: Linux c3po 2.4
PLEASE REPLY TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ONLY, *NOT* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10889
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UN
hi!
here's my updated patch. hope it gets on time.
libtool needs to be updated to build the libraries properly
on GNU/FreeBSD, my patch adds a pair of lines to debian/rules2
to update libtool automaticaly instead of having to patch
the libtool script in debian/patches/freebsd-gnu.dpatch
also t
On Sat, May 31, 2003 at 12:38:24PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Robert Millan writes:
> >
> > Since this problem is GNU/FreeBSD-specific i'm retitling this patch to put
> > in here my updates on debian/patches/freebsd-gnu.dpatch, too.
> >
> > I'll send an updated patch in a while.
>
> If you c
Accepted:
gcc-snapshot_20030531-1.diff.gz
to pool/main/g/gcc-snapshot/gcc-snapshot_20030531-1.diff.gz
gcc-snapshot_20030531-1.dsc
to pool/main/g/gcc-snapshot/gcc-snapshot_20030531-1.dsc
gcc-snapshot_20030531-1_i386.deb
to pool/main/g/gcc-snapshot/gcc-snapshot_20030531-1_i386.deb
gcc-snapshot
PLEASE REPLY TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ONLY, *NOT* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9209
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> reopen 193401
Bug#193401: specific dependency on libc6
Bug reopened, originator not changed.
> retitle 193401 update for GNU/FreeBSD support
Bug#193401: specific dependency on libc6
Changed Bug title.
> severity 193401 wishlist
Bug#193401: update for
reopen 193401
retitle 193401 update for GNU/FreeBSD support
severity 193401 wishlist
thanks
hi!
On Thu, May 15, 2003 at 10:32:47PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Robert Millan writes:
> >
> > libstdc++5-dev depends specificaly on libc6, making it uninstallable
> > on arches that have other sonam
Your message dated Sat, 31 May 2003 11:28:42 +0200
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#195388:
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 responsibility to reo
On Sat, 2003-05-31 at 10:35, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
> Herbert Valerio Riedel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > ...so... is _still_ not a buggy behaviour??
>
> No. Look at 8.5/9:
>
> # If no initializer is specified for an object, and the object is of
> # (possibly cv-qualified) non-POD class type (
Herbert Valerio Riedel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> ...so... is _still_ not a buggy behaviour??
No. Look at 8.5/9:
# If no initializer is specified for an object, and the object is of
# (possibly cv-qualified) non-POD class type (or array thereof), the
# object shall be default-initialized; if
28 matches
Mail list logo
