Your message dated Sun, 13 May 2012 22:38:54 -0500
with message-id <20120514033854.GA5970@burratino>
and subject line Re: gcc-4.6: errors from -pedantic -Werror say
"[-Werror=edantic]"
has caused the Debian Bug report #616634,
regarding gcc-4.6: errors from -pedantic -Werror say "[-Werror=edantic]
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> Version: 20120501-1
Unknown command or malformed arguments to command.
> reassign 616634 gcc-snapshot 20120407-1
Bug #616634 [gcc-4.7] gcc-4.6: errors from -pedantic -Werror say
"[-Werror=edantic]"
Bug reassigned from package 'gcc-4.7' to 'gcc-s
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> reassign 670978 src:gcc-4.6
Bug #670978 [binutils] FTBFS on kfreebsd-i386: Error: symbol type
"gnu_unique_object" is supported only by GNU targets
Bug reassigned from package 'binutils' to 'src:gcc-4.6'.
Ignoring request to alter found versions o
On Mon, May 07, 2012 at 07:06:31PM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
> On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 16:19:00 +, Matthias Klose wrote:
>
> > gcc-defaults (1.118) unstable; urgency=low
> > .
> >* Default to GCC 4.7 for gcc, g++, gfortran on amd64, i386,
> > kfreebsd-amd64, kfreebsd-i386 and hur
On 13.05.2012 18:42, Matthias Klose wrote:
On 13.05.2012 21:22, Julien Cristau wrote:
On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 18:58:42 +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
which ones? are there any reports which are not tagged? I went
through
the list of Lucas' new batch and tagged the appropriate ones.
There were a
On 13.05.2012 21:46, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> On 13.05.2012 20:22, Julien Cristau wrote:
>> On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 18:58:42 +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
>>
>>> On 13.05.2012 17:45, Philipp Kern wrote:
>>> > This doesn't mean that we shouldn't have gcc-4.7 in wheezy as an
>>> > alternative,
>>> >
On 13.05.2012 20:22, Julien Cristau wrote:
On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 18:58:42 +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
On 13.05.2012 17:45, Philipp Kern wrote:
> This doesn't mean that we shouldn't have gcc-4.7 in wheezy as an
alternative,
> just that it is highly problematic as the default at this point of
On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 19:42:21 +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> I am only aware of these usertags:
> debian...@lists.debian.org / qa-ftbfs-20120508
> do you known about a new rebuild?
>
No, I've seen bugs being filed from watching -bugs-rc.
Cheers,
Julien
signature.asc
Description: Digital sig
On 13.05.2012 21:22, Julien Cristau wrote:
> On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 18:58:42 +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
>
>> On 13.05.2012 17:45, Philipp Kern wrote:
>>> On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 11:40:36AM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 19:44:01 +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> The
On 13.05.2012 21:22, Julien Cristau wrote:
> On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 18:58:42 +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
>
>> On 13.05.2012 17:45, Philipp Kern wrote:
>>> On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 11:40:36AM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 19:44:01 +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> The
On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 18:58:42 +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> On 13.05.2012 17:45, Philipp Kern wrote:
> > On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 11:40:36AM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
> >> On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 19:44:01 +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> >>> The intent to get GCC changed was mentioned in the b
On 13.05.2012 17:45, Philipp Kern wrote:
> On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 11:40:36AM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
>> On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 19:44:01 +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
>>> The intent to get GCC changed was mentioned in the bug reports a month ago.
>> Seeing the number of new bug reports that ke
On 13.05.2012 01:39, Adam Borowski wrote:
> Hi!
>
> It looks like version 4.7.0-8 of g++-4.7 includes a fix for this one.
> On the other hand, gcc-snapshot 20120501-1 is still broken. It's likely
> the ICE has been already fixed upstream, though.
>
> Is there a trivial way to uupdate -snapshot?
LAST_UPDATED: Wed May 9 16:03:45 UTC 2012 (revision 187339)
Target: mipsel-linux-gnu
gcc version 4.7.0 (Debian 4.7.0-8)
Native configuration is mipsel-unknown-linux-gnu
=== g++ tests ===
Running target unix
UNRESOLVED: attribute_plugin.c compilation, -I.
-I/build/buildd-gcc-4
On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 11:40:36AM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
> On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 19:44:01 +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > The intent to get GCC changed was mentioned in the bug reports a month ago.
> Seeing the number of new bug reports that keep popping up I still think
> the switch shou
On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 19:44:01 +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> The intent to get GCC changed was mentioned in the bug reports a month ago.
Seeing the number of new bug reports that keep popping up I still think
the switch should be reverted. It was bad enough with all the month old
bugs still o
16 matches
Mail list logo
