On Tuesday 15 August 2006 16:29, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
> Package: g++-4.1
> Version: 4.1.1-5
> Severity: important
>
> The g++ version that recently entered testing exhibits the same problem I
> had been reported to the hppa maintainers -- and which Randolph report
> upstream at http://gcc.gnu.o
--- Comment #1 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-08-17 01:24 ---
For a simple example it does not do this:
opsy. gcj -O2 -fPIC -fjni -findirect-dispatch -o H --main=HelloWorld
HelloWorld.class
opsy. eu-readelf -d H|fgrep lib
NEEDEDShared library: [libgcc_s.so.1]
NE
LAST_UPDATED: Mon Aug 14 22:35:40 UTC 2006 (revision 116137)
Native configuration is sparc-unknown-linux-gnu
=== g++ tests ===
Running target unix
FAIL: g++.dg/lookup/linkage1.C (test for errors, line 3)
FAIL: g++.dg/lookup/linkage1.C (test for errors, line 4)
FAIL: g++.dg/loo
Your message dated Wed, 16 Aug 2006 15:18:00 -0700
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#356569: fixed in gcc-4.1 4.1.1-11
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
Your message dated Wed, 16 Aug 2006 15:18:10 -0700
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#381710: fixed in gcc-4.1 4.1.1-11
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
Your message dated Wed, 16 Aug 2006 15:18:00 -0700
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#321215: fixed in gcc-4.1 4.1.1-11
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
Your message dated Wed, 16 Aug 2006 15:18:10 -0700
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#382352: fixed in gcc-4.1 4.1.1-11
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
Your message dated Wed, 16 Aug 2006 15:18:10 -0700
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#381117: fixed in gcc-4.1 4.1.1-11
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
Your message dated Wed, 16 Aug 2006 15:18:00 -0700
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#321215: fixed in gcc-4.1 4.1.1-11
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
Your message dated Wed, 16 Aug 2006 15:18:01 -0700
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#368397: fixed in gcc-4.1 4.1.1-11
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-4.1_4.1.1-11_multi.changes uploaded successfully to localhost
along with the files:
libgfortran1-dev_4.1.1-11_m68k.deb
libffi4_4.1.1-11_i386.deb
lib64stdc++6-4.1-dbg_4.1.1-11_i386.deb
libstdc++6-4.1-pic_4.1.1-11_hppa.deb
libobjc1_4.1.1-11_i386.deb
libmudflap0_4.1.1-11_hppa.deb
lib
Accepted:
cpp-4.1_4.1.1-11_hppa.deb
to pool/main/g/gcc-4.1/cpp-4.1_4.1.1-11_hppa.deb
cpp-4.1_4.1.1-11_i386.deb
to pool/main/g/gcc-4.1/cpp-4.1_4.1.1-11_i386.deb
cpp-4.1_4.1.1-11_m68k.deb
to pool/main/g/gcc-4.1/cpp-4.1_4.1.1-11_m68k.deb
cpp-4.1_4.1.1-11_powerpc.deb
to pool/main/g/gcc-4.1/cpp
There are disparities between your recently accepted upload and the
override file for the following file(s):
gcc-4.1-base_4.1.1-11_hppa.deb: package says section is libs, override says
devel.
gcc-4.1-base_4.1.1-11_i386.deb: package says section is libs, override says
devel.
gcc-4.1-base_4.1.1-11
On Wed, 16 Aug 2006, Matthias Klose wrote:
Alexey Toptygin writes:
gcc-4.0-base and gcc-4.1-base in unstable still have this bug:
the comment in the bug report still holds:
yes, these are identical, because they are hard links, needed to solve
an upgrade issue when upgrading from 4.0.2-9.
Package: gcj
Severity: wishlist
It would be nice to have update-alternatives select a default version of
gcj, similar to what happens with other packages.
-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
APT prefers unstable
APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (500, 'stable'), (200, 'testin
the workaround as proposed by Joe Drew
("LD_LIBRARY_PATH=/usr/lib/debug:${LD_LIBRARY_PATH}"), works for me to
survive the crash reported in #364907.
so the 2 bug reports really seem to describe the same problem.
unfortunately that is still no "fix"
mfg.asdr.
IOhannes
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, e
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> found 383283 20060218-1
Bug#383283: [powerpc] in extract_insn, at recog.c:2077
Bug marked as found in version 20060218-1.
> forwarded 383283 http://gcc.gnu.org/PR28753
Bug#383283: [powerpc] in extract_insn, at recog.c:2077
Noted your statement that Bug
Package: gcc-snapshot
Version: 20060721-1
PR28753
> Automatic build of pyepl_1.0.14.dfsg.1-1 on test.track.rz.uni-augsburg.de by
> sbuild/powerpc 0.49
...
> gcc -pthread -fno-strict-aliasing -DNDEBUG -g -O2 -Wall -Wstrict-prototypes
> -fPIC -I/usr/include/python2.3 -c code/hardware/vr/avatar.c
Alexey Toptygin writes:
>
> gcc-4.0-base and gcc-4.1-base in unstable still have this bug:
the comment in the bug report still holds:
> yes, these are identical, because they are hard links, needed to solve
> an upgrade issue when upgrading from 4.0.2-9.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PRO
19 matches
Mail list logo
