Bug#369719: marked as done (ICE: tree check: expected ssa_name, have symbol_memory_tag in verify_ssa, at tree-ssa.c:776)

Your message dated Mon, 26 Jun 2006 14:32:48 -0700 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#369719: fixed in gcc-snapshot 20060626-1 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 c

Bug#367652: marked as done (segfault, related to constructor instantiation)

Your message dated Mon, 26 Jun 2006 14:32:48 -0700 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#367652: fixed in gcc-snapshot 20060626-1 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 c

Bug#374800: marked as done (ICE: verify_flow_info failed (wrong amount of branch edges after unconditional jump))

Your message dated Mon, 26 Jun 2006 14:32:48 -0700 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#374800: fixed in gcc-snapshot 20060626-1 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 c

Bug#367866: marked as done (c++ conversion check confused by enum bitfields)

Your message dated Mon, 26 Jun 2006 14:32:48 -0700 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#367866: fixed in gcc-snapshot 20060626-1 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 c

Bug#364125: marked as done (Build failure of rcs on sparch: undefined reference to `.LL226')

Your message dated Mon, 26 Jun 2006 14:32:48 -0700 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#364125: fixed in gcc-snapshot 20060626-1 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 c

Bug#361569: marked as done ("the address of x, will always evaluate" warning not grammaticial)

Your message dated Mon, 26 Jun 2006 14:32:47 -0700 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#361569: fixed in gcc-snapshot 20060626-1 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 c

gcc-snapshot_20060626-1_amd64.changes ACCEPTED

Accepted: gcc-snapshot_20060626-1.dsc to pool/main/g/gcc-snapshot/gcc-snapshot_20060626-1.dsc gcc-snapshot_20060626-1.tar.gz to pool/main/g/gcc-snapshot/gcc-snapshot_20060626-1.tar.gz gcc-snapshot_20060626-1_amd64.deb to pool/main/g/gcc-snapshot/gcc-snapshot_20060626-1_amd64.deb Announcing t

Processing of gcc-snapshot_20060626-1_amd64.changes

gcc-snapshot_20060626-1_amd64.changes uploaded successfully to localhost along with the files: gcc-snapshot_20060626-1.dsc gcc-snapshot_20060626-1.tar.gz gcc-snapshot_20060626-1_amd64.deb Greetings, Your Debian queue daemon -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a sub

Incomplete upload found in Debian upload queue

Probably you are the uploader of the following file(s) in the Debian upload queue directory: gcc-snapshot_20060626-1.dsc gcc-snapshot_20060626-1.tar.gz gcc-snapshot_20060626-1_amd64.deb This looks like an upload, but a .changes file is missing, so the job cannot be processed. If no .changes

Bug#364907: libstdc++6: application crash on throwing/catching exceptions

Martin Michlmayr wrote: * IOhannes m zmoelnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-05-11 15:16]: furthermore i am using nvidia's non-free openGL implementation, so i guess this is related to their drivers... :-( probably they just need to get recompiled with gcc-4.1 Can you confirm that this solved the