>
> On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 5:37 AM, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> >
> > I confirm, it's what I see in the testsuite log:
> >
> > | 77
> > | __signbitl
> > | version status: incompatible
> > | GLIBCXX_3.4
> > | type: function
> > | status: added
>
> If __signbitl is the only failure in the abi_check,
On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 5:37 AM, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
>
> I confirm, it's what I see in the testsuite log:
>
> | 77
> | __signbitl
> | version status: incompatible
> | GLIBCXX_3.4
> | type: function
> | status: added
If __signbitl is the only failure in the abi_check, then that's easy
to fix, th
LAST_UPDATED: Thu Nov 19 00:48:48 UTC 2009 (revision 154312)
Target: ia64-linux-gnu
gcc version 4.5.0 20091119 (experimental) [trunk revision 154312] (Debian
20091118-1)
=== acats tests ===
FAIL: cb1010a
FAIL: cb1010c
FAIL: cb1010d
=== acats Summary ===
#
LAST_UPDATED: Thu Nov 19 00:48:48 UTC 2009 (revision 154312)
Native configuration is arm-unknown-linux-gnueabi
=== libffi tests ===
Running target unix
XPASS: libffi.call/cls_align_longdouble_split.c -O0 -W -Wall execution test
XPASS: libffi.call/cls_align_longdouble_split2.c -O
LAST_UPDATED: Thu Nov 19 00:48:48 UTC 2009 (revision 154312)
Native configuration is alpha-unknown-linux-gnu
=== libffi tests ===
Running target unix
FAIL: libffi.call/cls_longdouble_va.c -O0 -W -Wall output pattern test, is %.1f
FAIL: libffi.call/cls_longdouble_va.c -O2 output
LAST_UPDATED: Obtained from SVN: tags/gcc_4_4_2_release revision 152840
Target: ia64-linux-gnu
gcc version 4.4.2 (Debian 4.4.2-3)
Native configuration is ia64-unknown-linux-gnu
=== g++ tests ===
Running target unix
=== g++ Summary ===
# of expected passes
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> affects 555801 libtool
Bug #555801 [gcj-4.3] gcj: Creates "dummy" variables.
Added indication that 555801 affects libtool
>
End of message, stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Debian bug tracking system administra
* Steve Langasek:
> It's been suggested to me that it might help Debian move forward on this
> issue if I provide some background on why Canonical has chosen to not regard
> this issue as critical for Ubuntu.
My personal impression is that Debian does not view this issue as
critical, either. Swi
On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 07:00:26PM -0600, Matthias Klose wrote:
> On 20.11.2009 16:44, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 10:31 AM, Aurelien Jarno
>> wrote:
>>> Domenico Andreoli a écrit :
On Thu, Nov 05, 2009 at 06:47:11PM +0100, Domenico Andreoli wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 5,
9 matches
Mail list logo