If possible, I'm going to wait for HJ to spin another release of binutils
before uploading anything post-2.12.92.0.15. It shouldn't be long. Once
he's made another one, I've got the rest of the bits ready to go, so I can
probably do the upload for this within a day.
What's our time frame for st
On Tue, 6 Aug 2002, Jan-Hendrik Palic wrote:
> PPC packages of gcc-3.2 can be found here no problems by building
> ...
>
> Building libstlport withit works, too
>
> Chris, now I'm starting to build it on MIPS, too ;)
I'm glad that you beat me to it :-) I didn't get the chance to sta
On Sat, 3 Aug 2002, Matthias Klose wrote:
> can be found at:
>
> http://ftp-master-debian.org/~doko/gcc
>
> based on CVS 020802.
Downloading now. I'll give it a shot on Alpha and powerpc for now. I'll
probably try mips and hppa tomorrow.
C
It's probably binutils. Expect another upload (of 15-1) in the next
24hrs.
C
On Thu, 1 Aug 2002, Jack Howarth wrote:
> What happened to the gcc 3.1.1 build on debian ppc sid? It looks
> horribly broken from the log. I ask because I built locally a
> gcc 3.1.1 package using the previous pre
As a short followup, I've had reports that the DAC960 driver compiles
correctly with gcc-3.0 and one report that 3.1 works as well. I've heard
mostly rumours that other known kernel driver miscompilation problems are
also fixed in gcc 3.x. Unfortunately, I do not have a DAC960 nor any of
the oth
As a short followup, I've had reports that the DAC960 driver compiles
correctly with gcc-3.0 and one report that 3.1 works as well. I've heard
mostly rumours that other known kernel driver miscompilation problems are
also fixed in gcc 3.x. Unfortunately, I do not have a DAC960 nor any of
the oth
On Fri, 31 May 2002, Jack Howarth wrote:
> Package: gcc-3.1
> Version: 3.1-2
>
> In rebuilding binutils 2.12.90.0.7-1 with gcc-3.1-2 on debian ppc sid
> I discovered that this causes binutils to have a new unexpected failure
> in its testsuite...
>
> Running
> /home/howarth/debian-binutils/bi
On Sat, 25 May 2002, Jack Howarth wrote:
> Package: gcc
> Version: 3.1-2
>
> It appears that the build scripts for the gcc 3.1 package are
> flawed in setting the configure paramaters. I find that when
> I build this package on debian ppc sid, the resulting gcc shows
>
> gcc -v
> Reading specs
On Tue, 21 May 2002, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> Add:
> FLAGS_TO_PASS = $(AM_MAKEFLAGS)
>
> to libstdc++/Makefile.am. I posted about this last week, but Matthias
> has been busy, I think.
He's been on holiday :-) If he isn't totally back for a day or two more,
I'll see if I can fix this for hi
On Mon, 20 May 2002, Maarten den Braber wrote:
> I've also experimented with toolchain, but couldn't find out which one
> (following README.cross or using toolchain) was the way to go. So I
> haven't explored that road any further.
>
> About binutils-sparc: can't I use the one provided in the di
On Mon, 20 May 2002, Maarten den Braber wrote:
> [ i'm not subscribed to this list, i would greatly appreciate it if you
> could CC your reply to me. thanks! ]
>
> Hi,
>
> Recently I bought a second-hand Sun JavaStation NC. I would like to run
> a custom 2.4 kernel on it so I need to compile
On 13 May 2002, Frederic Roussel wrote:
> Package: gcc-2.95
> Version: 1:2.95.4-9
> Severity: normal
>
> -- System Information
> Debian Release: 3.0
> Kernel Version: Linux big2 2.4.19-pre8-30 #1 SMP Mon May 13 18:01:01 PDT
> 2002 alpha unknown
>
> Versions of the packages gcc-2.95 depends on:
On Tue, 14 May 2002, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote:
> Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
>
> > merge 146883 134197
> Bug#134197: gcc-2.95: gcc 2.95.4 cannot compile a bootable 2.4.17 kernel on
> some Alpha machines.
> Bug#146883: Kernel compiled for an Alpha SMP is not bootable.
> M
On Thu, 9 May 2002, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> escher.debian.org:~willy/gnat-alpha.tar.bz2. Installs into
> /home/willy/alpha/. Or you can just use the binaries as they are
> on escher.
I grabbed them and am going to try to build Matthias' new packages (then
allow that one to build itself once) a
On Thu, 9 May 2002, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> Yep, I managed to cross-build everything to alpha from x86 and then it
> even compiled itself a few times. it was only trying to compile some
> auxiliary Ada programs where we ran into problems.
Ah, ok. Can you send me the binaries for the built Ada
On Thu, 9 May 2002, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> and it fails for
>
> arm alpha m68k
>
> alpha ought to work -- binutils is the suspected culprit. arm & m68k need
> work in their exception handling, so disable them for now.
FYI, I'm getting MUCH farther using Matthias' new gcc-3.1 pre packages as
On Thu, 9 May 2002, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> Done -- same place on resume. So we now have ada enabled for
>
> hppa ia64 i386 mips mipsel powerpc sparc s390
>
> and it fails for
>
> arm alpha m68k
>
> alpha ought to work -- binutils is the suspected culprit. arm & m68k need
> work in their ex
Thanks for this (glad I read the rest of the thread before asking for it
:-P). I've already got some new prelim binutils packages built, so I'll
give a shot here first with those and with CVS to see if anything changes.
I'll also try a cross-compiler setup from one of the other 64-bit
platforms
On Mon, 6 May 2002, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> and similar for m68k. Alpha appears to build, but once I try a native
> make bootstrap, I get a segmentation fault:
Hmmm...I may be making a binutils upload very soon with some fixes that
may affect this. Any chance I could impose on you to try again
On Sat, 4 May 2002, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> I just bootstrapped gcc (GCC) 3.1 20020503 (prerelease) on ia64 with Ada.
> You can use it by logging into merulo.debian.org and setting your PATH to
> /home/willy/gnu/bin:$PATH I got into trouble for using /usr/local/bin
> last time, so I've hidden it
On Tue, 12 Mar 2002, Matthias Klose wrote:
> please send a patch. I don't have access on an alpha and cannot easily
> see the layout. Or maybe Chris could give it a try?
I can try, but am VERY tight on time this week and possibly next. Adam,
if you can look at it, please do. If you run into a
On Fri, 1 Mar 2002, Erich Schubert wrote:
> Package: gcc-3.0
> Version: 1:3.0.4-1
> Severity: normal
>
> Shouldn't gcc-3.0 be an alternative for cc? maybe for gcc too?
>
> /usr/bin/cc is provided by gcc, but not by gcc-3.0 ?
The short answer is no, gcc is just package built from gcc-defaults t
On Tue, 26 Feb 2002, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 25, 2002 at 10:00:16PM -0800, Randolph Chung wrote:
> > Package: gcc-snapshot
> > Version: 20020224-1
> > Severity: serious
> >
> > legolas[21:58] ~% /usr/lib/gcc-snapshot/bin/gcc -o test test.c
> > /usr/bin/ld: unrecognized option '--e
On Fri, 15 Feb 2002, Scott Venier wrote:
> any chance you have a similar patch to qlogicisp.c? I'm getting a panic
> on line 1047 (in 2.4.17's version of qlogicisp.c). Though, I also got
> that panic using gcc 2.95.2, but not using gcc 2.96 (not sure which
> particular one).
I don't know mu
On Wed, 13 Feb 2002, Scott Venier wrote:
> That's a bit of a broad statement in the subject line, so let me clairify
> a bit. gcc 2.95.4 on alpha has some pretty nasty bugs. Because of those
> bugs, it can't build many parts of the linux kernel. Some of the problems
> are in device drivers (th
Oops...my error...3.0.4 debs for powerpc aren't in incoming yet. I'm
building the snapshot now, though.
C
On Wed, 30 Jan 2002, Lukas Geyer wrote:
>
> On Wed, 30 Jan 2002, Matthias Klose wrote:
>
> > Please could you recheck with gcc-3.0, and if this version doesn't fix
> > it, with the recen
On Wed, 30 Jan 2002, Lukas Geyer wrote:
> Bad news. It seems that gcc-3.0.3 (debian version 3.0.3-1) still
> misscompiles this thing at -O2. As for the snapshot package, I only found
> it for i386 and sparc, and building gcc from source on this laptop would
> be painful.
PowerPC debs for 3.0.4-2
On Tue, 29 Jan 2002, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 28, 2002 at 05:52:40PM +0200, Alexei Khlebnikov wrote:
> > Hello all.
> >
> > I have a problem: my shared library cannot be linked, because it's too big
> > (all objs are 140 megs in size). I compile sources with "-g" option. As I
On Sat, 5 Jan 2002, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > > This seems to be a Debian related problem, so what do we want to do?
> >
> > If I build you a chroot with an older libc6/libc6-dev, can you try a
> > build there?
>
> I doubt it: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2001-12/msg00868.html
>
> but will try...
On Sat, 5 Jan 2002, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Christopher C. Chimelis writes:
> > Speaking of bugs, can you take back 126162? I've
> > fixed my part of it already and the ball's back in your court.
>
> unsure, who gets the ball, but not me/gcc. I tried to build an
On Sat, 22 Dec 2001, Ben Collins wrote:
> Which files? The compiler binaries themselves (gcc, cc1, etc) should be
> sparc32. The libraries would be 64-bit. I just checked the binutils on
> vore and it does report supporting elf64_sparc, so that message
> shouldn't happen. Oh wait! binutils-multia
On Sun, 9 Dec 2001, Matthias Klose wrote:
> I should not patch libstdc++ myself :-( This is the offending patch,
> introduced to resolve a "severe performance problem" compared to
> gcc-2.95.2. See #92524 and #100571.
> http://bugs.debian.org/92524
> http://bugs.debian.org/100
On Fri, 7 Dec 2001, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Back from vacation, suffering from the jetlag ... preparing a
> gcc-3.0.3 upload for unstable. Currently scanning my mailbox for
> patches. Anything else, which should be included? I'm asking, because
> my unstable environment has been deleted during my
On Tue, 4 Dec 2001, Gerhard Tonn wrote:
> we need on s390 a libstdc++ library compatible to the 2.95.2 version. Does
> anybody know how to get or build it?
I still have some 2.95.2 source packages around if you'd like them.
C
On Wed, 28 Nov 2001, Martin v. Loewis wrote:
> I think there are still problems compiling glibc with gcc 3; glibc
> will claim to export symbols from libgcc, when it really can't (since
> the symbols in libgcc_s won't be incorporated into glibc). I believe
> there are patches circulating to solve
On Wed, 28 Nov 2001, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> The followup to #120333 indicates this is a bug with g++; is anyone
> looking into this? i see no discussing on debian-gcc about it, but i'm
> reluctant to simply reassign it to gcc.
I'm trying to get to it :-) It looks very similar to an EH problem
On Tue, 27 Nov 2001, Martin v. Loewis wrote:
> Unlikely. The original gdb "backtrace" indicated that somebody was
> jumping to address 0. I think potential causes are:
>
> 1. dynamic initialization of a shared library has not been carried
>out. It would be interesting to verify that all shar
On Tue, 27 Nov 2001, John R. Daily wrote:
> I haven't seen any reponse from Ben, so I'm going to go ahead and
> move the bug to glibc. It would be rather unfortunate if this
> isn't fixed for woody, but at this point that may be impossible.
Ok. I'll work it out with him when he gets back from v
On Tue, 27 Nov 2001, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> I could have sworn it was NTFS...
>
> util.h:
> typedef enum {
> FILE_$Mft = 0,
> FILE_$MftMirr = 1,
> etc.
>
> I'm fairly certain that DOLLARS_IN_IDENTIFIERS affects the legality of
> that enum.
Yes, it does and you're co
On Tue, 27 Nov 2001, Martin v. Loewis wrote:
> That isn't really true, is it? Atleast in the NTFS code, I cannot find
> such code (and I can't remember writing it, either :-).
Hehehe...I seem to remember seeing such code in the kernel source, but
that was some time ago and I haven't looked for i
On Tue, 27 Nov 2001, Martin v. Loewis wrote:
> According to the GCC documentation, the rationale for this feature is
> that traditional C allows it, but ISO C and ISO C++ disallow it.
>
> So I'd say that, if all Debian packages either build fine without it,
> or enable it when needed, turning it
On Tue, 27 Nov 2001, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> As with that bug, no, GCC should complain about dollars starting
> identifiers. Try using b$c instead of $b.
Oddly enough, our powerpc gcc packages have --no-dollars-in-identifiers
enabled by default, despite gas having no problems handling things
On Tue, 27 Nov 2001, Guido Guenther wrote:
> Interesting enough the program works as expected when compiled with
> -static like "g++ -ggdb -o throw-2.95 throw.cc" (linker bug?)
Hmmm...maybe, but I don't know until looking at it. I rebooted my Indy
last night, so I'll start playing with the tool
On Mon, 26 Nov 2001, Martin v. Loewis wrote:
> Could you kindly elaborate a little? I assume one problem is that $
> indicates literal values to the assembler, as in
>
> movl$.LC1, (%esp)
>
> That explains why dollars at the beginning of identifiers are not
> acceptable. It doesn't ex
On Mon, 26 Nov 2001, Guido Guenther wrote:
> Could you check the source code if these packages crash while messing
> with C++ exceptions? I just had a quick look into the menu package and
> it seems that C++ exception handling is broken on mips using g++-2.95.4.
> A testcase like:
>
> #include
On Mon, 26 Nov 2001, Bill Allombert wrote:
> gcc by default allows dollars in identifiers on i386.
> Unfortunately, the assembler does not like them.
I'll spare the explanation of why the assembler barfs (since I'm assuming
that it's as obvious to everyone else as it is to me), but Bill's correc
On Fri, 23 Nov 2001, Gerhard Tonn wrote:
> All architectures except powerpc and hppa are using it. The s390 version
> seems also to work.
Ok...meant to ask about testing it on s390 (since I have most of the other
archs already :-P), but you covered that. I'll see what I can do either
tomorrow
BTW, has someone tested the current gcc-3.0 package with a shared
libgcc? I seem to remember a discussion about it not working somehow, but
can't remember the context or result.
C
On Wed, 21 Nov 2001, Gerhard Tonn wrote:
> Hi,
> is someone going to upload a new version of gcc-3.0 as long as Ma
On Wed, 21 Nov 2001, Gerhard Tonn wrote:
> is someone going to upload a new version of gcc-3.0 as long as Matthias is on
> vacation? If yes, could you apply the fix from bug report 120452. It is a
> trivial fix to reenable shared libgcc for s390. If not, will anybody mind if
> I a do a source
On Tue, 20 Nov 2001, Phil Edwards wrote:
> All true. Just as an addendum: if a user only needs support code (new,
> delete, etc) and doesn't feel like linking against the full libstdc++,
> the support code also exists in a separate library, libsupc++.
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/libs
On Tue, 20 Nov 2001, Jason Williams wrote:
> Fair enough; it's just that "old" gcc never seemed to require that.
> Presumably I was incorrect in relying on that behaviour.
I believe that it is incorrect to rely on that. It's possible that the
new operator was contained in libgcc in 2.95.4, mean
On Tue, 20 Nov 2001, Jason Williams wrote:
> 'lo, sorry to bother you.
>
> gcc 2.x compiles C++ source files fine, but gcc-3.0 doesn't. (g++-3.0 seems
> to work okay). Is this a deliberate change?
>
> (trying to compile C++ with gcc-3.0 fails with undefined references to
> new and delete)
I ha
On Fri, 16 Nov 2001, John R. Daily wrote:
> I should have provided more information. The bits/wordsize.h is
> included in a part of the file that is excluded for __GNUC__ >= 2.
I should've looked closer :-) I totally missed the #if's around it :-)
You're right...according to the comment, it sho
On Fri, 16 Nov 2001, John R. Daily wrote:
> If glibc is to be believed (/usr/include/limits.h), gcc should
> be defining __WORDSIZE.
>
> gcc versions 2.95, 2.96, and 3.0 have been tested; none of
> them seem to define it.
>
> As it is, there doesn't seem to be a good way to distinguish
> 32 bit
On Wed, 14 Nov 2001, Eray Ozkural (exa) wrote:
> Are you a g++ author?
I am, although not on a regular basis (I write in ANSI C much more).
> This illustrates what I'm exactly talking about. IIRC some other compilers
> will complain about the f function not returning any value here. (Have to
>
On 2 Nov 2001, Brian Nelson wrote:
> I've been trying out gcc-3.0 (3.0.2) with some little Qt apps that I
> wrote. The code compiles fine, but fails with tons of undefined
> references Qwhatever objects when trying to link.
>
> All is well, however, when linking with 2.95.4.
>
> What's the pro
> > 'preferred' by whom? I think that this should be controlled by
> > sysadmin. The whole 'alternatives' system for making easy
> > for sysadmin to change defaults. Why gcc is exception?
>
> ld and as are exceptions as well.
>
> use the system compiler to build libfoo, change the system com
On Tue, 9 Oct 2001, Mike Lewis wrote:
> I'm trying to track down libstdc++2.9 for alpha, which doesn't seem to
> exist. There's 2.8 and 2.10, but no 2.9. I need to run code that I
> unfortunately don't have the source for, and it wants
> libstdc++-libc6.1-1.so.2
I don't have a copy of libstdc+
On Sat, 6 Oct 2001, Jack Howarth wrote:
> If you aren't aware Jakub Jelinek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> is working
> on a prelinker for multiple archs on linux. He has work finished on
> many archs ready. There are however changes to improve performance of
> the resulting prelinking that have been p
On Wed, 3 Oct 2001, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> Oh, there's a release schedule. It's not due out till April, though.
>
> I agree.
Plenty of time, then. Also, seems like it won't even bootstrap right now
(hence the flood of messages under the relevant threads), so we have the
time to get an eff
On Tue, 2 Oct 2001, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> Perhaps we should look at toolchain-source? I don't like it as a
> solution, but it already exists.
True. Let's allow gcc 3.1 to progress to the point where we can talk
about this more seriously. For now, I don't think there's any great
demand to
On Tue, 2 Oct 2001, Samuel Tardieu wrote:
> Concerning the port of GNAT, I've done the Sparc and PowerPC one and that
> was quite straightforward. I understand that Alpha may be much harder
> because it will be the first Linux/64 bits port.
Preciselythat, and the docs to do such a thing are
On Tue, 2 Oct 2001, Matthias Klose wrote:
> you can turn off any language in the debian/rules files you want. or
> do you argue that a bootstrap would fail, if no ada compiler already
> exists for the platform?
If my understanding of how they're accomplishing the merge is correct, it
can be disa
On Tue, 2 Oct 2001, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> I'm also very reluctant to package Ada at the same time as the main GCC
> snapshots because it requires Ada installed to build. Others might
> argue with me on that point, though.
I agree with the above. If GNAT isn't already compiled on an
archit
On Wed, 19 Sep 2001, Richard Reich wrote:
> Debian GCC maintainers,
>
> I'm trying to build gcc on my home box, I did apt-get source gcc and
> also got a few others, I also did apt-get build-dep gcc. I'm still
> getting an error.
>
> the command I execute to compile gcc is...
> ./debian/rules
On Tue, 28 Aug 2001, Randolph Chung wrote:
> On Debian/hppa, we have 32 or 64 bit kernels, but userspace is always 32
> bit (sorta like sparc aiui). As such, there's a need for a
> hppa32->hppa64 cross-compiler.
>
> Right now there is no such package in Debian yet; the hppa porters use a
> tarba
On Thu, 26 Jul 2001, Petr Vandrovec wrote:
> > Why not have the kernel Makefile pass "-flimit-inline=1" explicitly?
>
> Because of I see no reason for breaking documented behavior - also my
He's got a point here. The documentation says that the inlining limit
default is 1. I'll have t
Package: gcc-2.95
Version: 0.010703
Severity: critical
Apparently, the new gcc-gas-hidden patch isn't correct, or rather, isn't
complete. As it stands, gcc will not bootstrap with that patch applied.
The change needed to make this patch work involves possibly changing the
C++ ABI, since we're a
Package: gcc-2.95
Version: 2.95.4-0.010629
Severity: critical
While packaging a new binutils, I noticed that 'strip -g' called twice
failed to strip binaries that were generated by gcc-2.95, and in fact,
produced binaries that no longer worked (as well as causing strip to
segfault). This only a
On Tue, 24 Jul 2001, Matthias Klose wrote:
> The latest version is 3.0.1.ds0-0pre010721 (now in incoming
> 3.0.1.ds0-0pre010723), which is built for i386 only.
I'm building for alpha today. My source mirror is in a time-warp
apparently, so I wasn't able to easily get the source from my work mac
On Mon, 23 Jul 2001, Matthias Klose wrote:
> I don't like the current situation. we have a gcc version in woody
> that should be removed and version in sid, which doesn't
> propagate.
What's the hold-up on the sid->woody move for gcc-3.0 (I haven't seen
update-excuses yet)? I can't think of any
On Mon, 23 Jul 2001, Alexei Khlebnikov wrote:
> I am faced with a problem: my classes hierarchy is not compiled by G++ 3.0
> Debian prerelease.
> I use woody branch and I don't want to switch to sid because I want to have a
> somewhat stable system.
>
> G++ 3.0 Debian prerelease ICEs on my (legal
spot
(which it might be).
C
-- Forwarded message --
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 19:00:49 -0700
From: H . J . Lu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Christopher C. Chimelis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Nevermind the nevermind (sorry!)
On Tue, Jul 17, 2001 at 12:32:35PM -0400, Ch
On Mon, 16 Jul 2001, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> I don't get it. Are you getting an ICE or a segfault in binutils?
Segfault when I run 'strip -g' twice on the same binary (usually an object
file from an ar archive). Any readelf/objcopy/etc on that file after
the first run of strip segfaults a
ub] Error 2
On Tue, 17 Jul 2001, Christopher C. Chimelis wrote:
> Ack! Didn't realise that we still weren't including that patch
>
> Well, I'm trying to compile WITH the patch again :-P Either way, I'll
> figure this out...
>
> C
>
> On Tue,
Ack! Didn't realise that we still weren't including that patch
Well, I'm trying to compile WITH the patch again :-P Either way, I'll
figure this out...
C
On Tue, 17 Jul 2001, Christopher C. Chimelis wrote:
>
> Oops...forgot to cc the list :-P
>
>
Oops...forgot to cc the list :-P
-- Forwarded message --
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 01:10:39 -0400 (EDT)
From: Christopher C. Chimelis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Possible problems again with alpha and the fsirl patch
I just sp
On Mon, 25 Jun 2001, Matthias Klose wrote:
> funny report. what do you expect? please provide the relevant source
> as documented in /usr/share/doc/gcc-3.0/README.Bugs.gz.
>
> > I'm Gabor Lenart from Hungary and we're developing a movie player software
> > for Linux. We tried to compile and be
On Sat, 23 Jun 2001, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Chris, any support in ld needed?
I believe so. I'm working on a new package, but am having problems with
objcopy on at least one platform (segfault). I'll see what I can do about
putting together a new release this week.
C
>
> laurent bonnaud wri
On Mon, 18 Jun 2001, Matthias Klose wrote:
> here we go ... The packages are in incoming, built for i386, hppa
> patch checked, libgcc symlink corrected.
>
> known issues:
>
> - doxygen segfaults generating the libstdc++-v3 docs (1.3.6 worked
> ok). results in an empty html_user dir.
>
> - t
On Mon, 18 Jun 2001, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Package: g++-3.0
> Version: 1:3.0-0pre010613
> Severity: important
> Tags: sid
>
> This is midly annoying:
>
> > g++-3.0 -o xxx xxx.C
> /usr/bin/ld: cannot find -lgcc_s
> collect2: ld returned 1 exist status
The fix is already committed to CVS and
On Mon, 18 Jun 2001, Martini de La Rosso wrote:
> is the package on the way ?
>
> (final i mean)
Nothing like giving us a bit of time to work on it, eh? :-P Just
kidding. There's one problem to solve in the Debian parts that I know of
(which will close about 8 duplicate bug reports). Othe
On Fri, 15 Jun 2001, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > I'll check, but the GCC_SONAME wasn't modified, which is what the link was
> > originally based on. I am currently trying to figure out if we can grep
> > or awk it out of a file some place rather than hard-coding it in the
> > rules scripts...
>
On Fri, 15 Jun 2001, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 15, 2001 at 09:34:36PM -0700, Evan Prodromou wrote:
> > By the way, there -is- a libgcc_s available:
> >
> > ---8<---
> > evan priss:~/tmp$ find /usr/lib -name *libgcc_s*
> > /usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-linux/3.0/libgcc_s.so
> > ---8<---
> >
On 15 May 2001, Andrew 'ashridah' Pilley wrote:
> heh. okay. the topic's ambiguous. i apoligize
> if you have any comments on this, please read
> on, it's basically a question concerning debian's
> position between 2.95/2.96 and 3.0. if you're sick
> of hearing about it. stop reading now, flame m
On Sat, 12 May 2001, Ben Collins wrote:
> Well, the terrible happened. The entire eh handling in gcc-3 branch
> changed, and the libgcc soname didn't. So basically all C++ applications
> will break. I tried to get the soname to change, but no luck.
Ugh!
> Also, I have the 5-10-2001 checkout rea
On Thu, 10 May 2001, Ben Collins wrote:
> I've got a huge hppa patch from Matt, and some other minor updates.
>
> Matthias, do you have the gpc tarball referenced in CVS? Is it needed
> for the upload?
>
> Any other patches anyone wants included? CVS is updated as of 5-10-2001.
None needed for
On Tue, 1 May 2001, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> Well, we _were_ fine. Then amodra fixed a bug this morning (quote):
>
> I've checked in a new file to pehc glibc CVS, merge_GLIBC_CVS_20010424
> branch. If anyone wants to try it,
>
> ** YOU'LL NEED NEW BINUTILS **
>
> from any of the usual CVS re
On Tue, 1 May 2001, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > In addition to needing hppa gcc debs I also need to do hppa64 cross
> compiler
> > debs(mostly for building 64bit kernels). I am hoping to use the GCC_TARGET
> > environment variable thing in the 3.0 package but haven't started working
> on
>
On Wed, 25 Apr 2001, Matthias Klose wrote:
> It would be nice if you could find people to look at gcc/g++ bugs
> found at
>
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I'll see what I can do. I've been working on trying to fix the
non-virtual thunk problem in the 3.0 packages on Alpha,
On Wed, 25 Apr 2001, Matthias Klose wrote:
> if I remember correctly, you assumed that the removed function.c patch
> should resolve the problems. You wanted to send your results "in one
> hour". Could you identify the wrong part in the patch in the meantime?
Thought I had sent a reply, but it
Just plucked 010424 out of the archive and tried compiling after noting
that the fsirl patch is, once again, applied universally. It's still
bombing on Alpha
I'm disabling it and enabling the gcc-weaksym patch for Alpha for this
upload, but am not at a machine where I can get to the CVS repo
On Wed, 18 Apr 2001, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Using the same source is a must.
Absolutely.
> - A policy compliant solution would be a binary source package for
> each package which needs to be cross compiled. Same as
> kernel-source. Then a package -toolchain could depend
> on those packag
On Tue, 17 Apr 2001, Jeff Bailey wrote:
> Excellent! The long binutils compiles were triggering a bug in the Hurd,
> causing a crash, so I had to remove it from the autobuilder. I will
> add it back in now.
Thanks for letting me know this. All the more reason to get
cross-compiling situated a
On Tue, 17 Apr 2001, David Schleef wrote:
> Do you mean that you are removing the patches, or disabling them?
> I rather like the gcc-2.95 method of being native-only by default,
> but you can edit a few things and build cross-compilers yourself.
For now, I'm removing the patches. I am keeping
Just wanted to announce this...
I'm removing the cross-compiler patches to debian/rules, etc. as
of the upcoming 2.11.90.0.5-1. Until we get a better method for compiling
these, I'd rather not have the packages available. As it stands, it takes
several hours to build binutils and all of the cro
On Wed, 11 Apr 2001, Jan Gregor wrote:
> I moved to debian potato last month from redhat 6.1 . I think I found
> bug in gcc which influence kernel. First I used kernel 2.2.18pre21
> from potato. Sometimes after loading from lilo and showing
> "uncompressing linux ... " my computer halts. When I
On Tue, 3 Apr 2001, Ben Collins wrote:
> For the first time I was able to compile the gcc-3.0 CVS and build glibc
> 2.2.3pre1 with it on sparc-linux. Even more so, there were no errors
> from the glibc make check, and the library installed without any
> problems.
Woohoo! That's good news for my
On Thu, 29 Mar 2001, Christopher C. Chimelis wrote:
> Am I the only one who has problems building -9? It really builds
> fine, but something's going wrong during packaging in rules2. Just
> curious...here's the error:
A quick follow-up...
Seems to work fine if I just use
Hey...
Am I the only one who has problems building -9? It really builds
fine, but something's going wrong during packaging in rules2. Just
curious...here's the error:
make -f debian/rules2 TARGET=arch-% stamps/07-binary-stamp-arch-%
make[1]: Entering directory
`/src/gcc/2.95.3/2.95.3.ds5-9/gcc
1 - 100 of 107 matches
Mail list logo
