PLEASE REPLY TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ONLY, *NOT* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6901
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
BugsThisDependsOn|
PLEASE REPLY TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ONLY, *NOT* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9363
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
LAST_UPDATED:
Native configuration is m68k-unknown-linux-gnu
=== g++ tests ===
Running target unix
FAIL: g++.eh/spec3.C Execution test
FAIL: g++.eh/spec4.C Execution test
XPASS: g++.other/init5.C Execution test
=== g++ Summary ===
# of expected passes
PLEASE REPLY TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ONLY, *NOT* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10206
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
GCC target triplet|
PLEASE REPLY TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ONLY, *NOT* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8606
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASS
PLEASE REPLY TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ONLY, *NOT* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6901
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|opt
> "Matthias" == Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Matthias> This report is very vague. Should it be submitted to bugzilla anyway?
Could you get more info first?
Ideally the reporter could find out exactly what goes wrong.
Tom
PLEASE REPLY TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ONLY, *NOT* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8606
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
GCC target triplet|
PLEASE REPLY TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ONLY, *NOT* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10730
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
GCC target triplet|
PLEASE REPLY TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ONLY, *NOT* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8603
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
GCC target triplet|
PLEASE REPLY TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ONLY, *NOT* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10692
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
GCC target triplet|
PLEASE REPLY TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ONLY, *NOT* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10984
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
GCC target triplet|
PLEASE REPLY TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ONLY, *NOT* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6901
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2003-06-13 11:04 ---
Case 1 is fixed.
Case 2 is still present in gcc 3.3 and is identical as before.
Case 3 is gone as gcc 3
PLEASE REPLY TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ONLY, *NOT* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11052
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
Your message dated Fri, 13 Jun 2003 12:21:53 +0200
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#195353: java.net.SocketException: SO_REUSEADDR: not valid
for TCP
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If
Your message dated Fri, 13 Jun 2003 11:51:42 +0200
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Processed: Fixed in NMU of gcc-3.2 1:3.2.3ds9-4
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 i
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> severity 196381 wishlist
Bug#196381: libstdc++5-3.3-doc: "Main Page" is a bad title
Severity set to `wishlist'.
> forwarded 196381 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#196381: libstdc++5-3.3-doc: "Main Page" is a bad title
Noted your statement that Bug has been forwa
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> retitle 196380 [fixed in 3.4] libstdc++5-3.3-doc: lower_bound is not well
> documented
Bug#196380: libstdc++5-3.3-doc: lower_bound is not well documented
Changed Bug title.
> forwarded 196380 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#196380: [fixed in 3.4] libstdc++5-3.3
Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Looking at the build logs you'll see many warnings:
>
> dereferencing type-punned pointer will break strict-aliasing rules
>
> Is it safe to ignore these warnings? Please could you try to compile
> using -O2 -fno-strict-aliasing to see if this is re
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> # submitted Debian report #197099 to gcc-gnats as PR 11183
> # http://gcc.gnu.org/PR11183
> forwarded 197099 http://gcc.gnu.org/PR11183
Bug#197099: [3.3 arm regression] internal compiler error: in change_address_1,
at emit-rtl.c:2017
Noted your stateme
This report is very vague. Should it be submitted to bugzilla anyway?
Adam C Powell IV writes:
> Package: gcj-3.3
> Version: 1:3.3-3
> Severity: normal
>
> Hello,
>
> Okay, so this is kind of a vague bug at this point, but here's what I
> know: with gcj-3.2 installed, babel compiles and runs jus
Looking at the build logs you'll see many warnings:
dereferencing type-punned pointer will break strict-aliasing rules
Is it safe to ignore these warnings? Please could you try to compile
using -O2 -fno-strict-aliasing to see if this is related to the recent
miscompilation using gcc-3.3?
Tha
> > Indeed, all freetype/libfreetype combos did work fine with
> > libfreetype6_2.1.4-1_m68k.deb and libfreetype6_2.1.4-2_m68k.deb from the
> > apt cache.
>
> You mean fontconfig/libfreetype?
Nope, fontconfig/libfonconfig1 - any of those work as long as libfreetype
is OK.
Michael
Package: g++-3.2, g++-3.3
Version: 1:3.2.3-4, 1:3.3-3
Severity: minor
Hi,
,
| /etc/cron.daily/man-db:
| mandb: warning: /usr/share/man/man1/i386-linux-g++-3.3.1 is a dangling symlink
| mandb: warning: /usr/share/man/man1/i386-linux-g++-3.2.1 is a dangling symlink
`
They should point t
24 matches
Mail list logo
