On Monday 06 October 2003 03:42, Falk Hueffner wrote:
> > > Richard Henderson (the Alpha fellow from Red Hat) said he wouldn't
> > > accept it into the general GCC unless all users of GCC (i.e. BSD,
> > > etc) came forward and said they wanted it.
> > >
> > > He also gave three reasons why he perso
LAST_UPDATED: Sun Oct 5 19:09:38 UTC 2003
Native configuration is s390-ibm-linux-gnu
=== g++ tests ===
Running target unix
XPASS: g++.dg/ext/lvalue1.C not an lvalue (test for errors, line 7)
FAIL: g++.dg/ext/pretty1.C scan-assembler top level
FAIL: g++.dg/ext/pretty2.C (test fo
LAST_UPDATED: Sun Oct 5 17:32:22 UTC 2003
Native configuration is powerpc-unknown-linux-gnu
=== g++ tests ===
Running target unix
XPASS: g++.dg/other/packed1.C execution test
XPASS: g++.other/init5.C Execution test
=== g++ Summary ===
# of expected passes
LAST_UPDATED: Sun Oct 5 19:09:38 UTC 2003
Native configuration is alpha-unknown-linux-gnu
=== libffi tests ===
Running target unix
FAIL: libffi.call/pyobjc-tc.c execution test
=== libffi Summary ===
# of expected passes124
# of unexpected failures
LAST_UPDATED: Sun Oct 5 19:09:38 UTC 2003
Native configuration is i486-pc-linux-gnu
=== g++ tests ===
Running target unix
XPASS: g++.dg/ext/lvalue1.C not an lvalue (test for errors, line 7)
FAIL: g++.dg/ext/pretty1.C scan-assembler top level
FAIL: g++.dg/ext/pretty2.C (test for
LAST_UPDATED: Sun Oct 5 19:09:38 UTC 2003
Native configuration is hppa-unknown-linux-gnu
=== g++ tests ===
Running target unix
XPASS: g++.dg/ext/lvalue1.C not an lvalue (test for errors, line 7)
FAIL: g++.dg/ext/pretty1.C scan-assembler top level
FAIL: g++.dg/ext/pretty2.C (tes
LAST_UPDATED: Sun Oct 5 19:09:38 UTC 2003
Native configuration is ia64-unknown-linux-gnu
=== g++ tests ===
Running target unix
XPASS: g++.dg/ext/lvalue1.C not an lvalue (test for errors, line 7)
FAIL: g++.dg/ext/pretty1.C scan-assembler top level
FAIL: g++.dg/ext/pretty2.C (tes
LAST_UPDATED: Sun Oct 5 17:32:22 UTC 2003
Native configuration is ia64-unknown-linux-gnu
=== g++ tests ===
Running target unix
FAIL: g++.dg/eh/forced1.C execution test
FAIL: g++.dg/tls/init-2.C (test for excess errors)
FAIL: g++.eh/terminate2.C Execution test
XPASS: g++.other/
LAST_UPDATED: Sun Oct 5 17:32:22 UTC 2003
Native configuration is i486-pc-linux-gnu
=== g++ tests ===
Running target unix
FAIL: g++.dg/tls/init-2.C (test for excess errors)
XPASS: g++.other/init5.C Execution test
=== g++ Summary ===
# of expected passes
LAST_UPDATED: Sun Oct 5 17:32:22 UTC 2003
Native configuration is s390-ibm-linux-gnu
=== g++ tests ===
Running target unix
FAIL: g++.dg/tls/init-2.C (test for excess errors)
XPASS: g++.other/init5.C Execution test
=== g++ Summary ===
# of expected passes
LAST_UPDATED: Sun Oct 5 19:09:38 UTC 2003
Native configuration is powerpc-unknown-linux-gnu
=== g++ tests ===
Running target unix
XPASS: g++.dg/ext/lvalue1.C not an lvalue (test for errors, line 7)
FAIL: g++.dg/ext/pretty1.C scan-assembler top level
FAIL: g++.dg/ext/pretty2.C (
LAST_UPDATED: Sun Oct 5 17:32:22 UTC 2003
Native configuration is alpha-unknown-linux-gnu
=== libjava tests ===
Running target unix
FAIL: initexc execution - gij test
FAIL: initexc execution - gij test
=== libjava Summary ===
# of expected passes29
LAST_UPDATED: Sun Oct 5 17:32:22 UTC 2003
Native configuration is hppa-unknown-linux-gnu
=== g++ tests ===
Running target unix
FAIL: g++.dg/compat/break/bitfield7 x_tst.o compile
UNRESOLVED: g++.dg/compat/break/bitfield7 x_tst.o-y_tst.o link
UNRESOLVED: g++.dg/compat/break/bit
PLEASE REPLY TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ONLY, *NOT* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9077
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> As Chris (currently listed as package maintainer for gcc alpha)
> seems to be away, I'll ask on debian-alpha (Falk?), if this patch
> should be included.
I'd vote for not including it like it is now.
> > Richard Henderson (the Alpha fellow from Red Ha
Accepted:
gcc-snapshot_20031005-1_hppa.deb
to pool/main/g/gcc-snapshot/gcc-snapshot_20031005-1_hppa.deb
Thank you for your contribution to Debian.
Your message dated Mon, 06 Oct 2003 02:32:50 -0400
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#211054: fixed in gcc-3.3 1:3.3.2ds3-0pre5
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
Your message dated Mon, 06 Oct 2003 02:32:50 -0400
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#212912: fixed in gcc-3.3 1:3.3.2ds3-0pre5
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
Your message dated Mon, 06 Oct 2003 02:32:50 -0400
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#210478: fixed in gcc-3.3 1:3.3.2ds3-0pre5
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
Your message dated Mon, 06 Oct 2003 02:32:50 -0400
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#210478: fixed in gcc-3.3 1:3.3.2ds3-0pre5
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
Your message dated Mon, 06 Oct 2003 02:32:50 -0400
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#202762: fixed in gcc-3.3 1:3.3.2ds3-0pre5
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
Your message dated Mon, 06 Oct 2003 02:32:50 -0400
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#212406: fixed in gcc-3.3 1:3.3.2ds3-0pre5
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
Your message dated Mon, 06 Oct 2003 02:32:50 -0400
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#209386: fixed in gcc-3.3 1:3.3.2ds3-0pre5
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
Accepted:
cpp-3.3-doc_3.3.2-0pre5_all.deb
to pool/main/g/gcc-3.3/cpp-3.3-doc_3.3.2-0pre5_all.deb
cpp-3.3_3.3.2-0pre5_i386.deb
to pool/main/g/gcc-3.3/cpp-3.3_3.3.2-0pre5_i386.deb
fastjar_3.3.2-0pre5_i386.deb
to pool/main/g/gcc-3.3/fastjar_3.3.2-0pre5_i386.deb
fixincludes_3.3.2-0pre5_i386.deb
Accepted:
cpp-3.3_3.3.2-0pre5_hppa.deb
to pool/main/g/gcc-3.3/cpp-3.3_3.3.2-0pre5_hppa.deb
fastjar_3.3.2-0pre5_hppa.deb
to pool/main/g/gcc-3.3/fastjar_3.3.2-0pre5_hppa.deb
fixincludes_3.3.2-0pre5_hppa.deb
to pool/main/g/gcc-3.3/fixincludes_3.3.2-0pre5_hppa.deb
g++-3.3_3.3.2-0pre5_hppa.deb
25 matches
Mail list logo