gelog
===
--- debian/changelog(revision 6085)
+++ debian/changelog(working copy)
@@ -1,3 +1,9 @@
+gcc-4.4 (4.4.7-2) UNRELEASED; urgency=low
+
+ * Disable ObjC and Obj-C++ packages.
+
+ -- Jonathan Nieder Sat, 21 Jul 2012 16:
Hi,
Daniel Schepler wrote:
> When I try to build glibc, the git master branch, on Debian sid amd64,
> I get this error:
[...]
> ../sysdeps/ieee754/dbl-64/wordsize-64/s_isnan.c:30:1: error: '__EI___isnan'
> aliased to external symbol '__GI___isnan'
[...]
> I tried building upstream GCC 4.7.1 with
(cc-ing Jakub)
Patrick Baggett wrote:
> Are you running a native ia64->ia64 compiler or a cross-compiler? Do you
> happen to know if this occurs when using a cross-compiler to ia64?
Thanks, Patrick. I'm guessing it only happens with a native compiler,
but that's just a wild guess.
Hope that hel
pre-multiarch gcc. Closes: #651550.
* libstdc++6: Lower priority from required to important.
-- Jonathan Nieder Fri, 24 Feb 2012 02:38:01 -0600
diff --git i/debian/control.m4 w/debian/control.m4
index fb8d4d48..5ba91787 100644
--- i/debian/control.m4
+++ w/debian/control.m4
@@ -652,6 +652,7 @@ Pac
forcemerge 584572 623280
quit
Hi,
Joey Hess wrote:
> apt-get: symbol lookup error: /usr/lib/libstdc++.so.6: undefined symbol:
> _ZNSt8messagesIcE2idE, version GLIBCXX_3.4
>
> This system tracks unstable but had been off, and trying to install
> something pulled in a new libstdc++6 w/o first upg
#x27;libstdc++6' \
= 2.11) for STB_GNU_UNIQUE support
(Eugene V. Lyubimkin). Closes: #584572.
+ * libstdc++6: Lower priority from required to important.
-- Jonathan Nieder Fri, 24 Feb 2012 02:38:01 -0600
diff --git i/debian/control.m4 w/debian/control.m4
index cbae8a86..f
Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> How about this patch
> (untested)?
[...]
> +++ b/debian/rules.conf
[...]
> @@ -784,6 +781,7 @@ substvars-file:
> echo 'binutils:Version=$(BINUTILSV)'; \
> e
s on libc (>= 2.11) for STB_GNU_UNIQUE support
+(Eugene V. Lyubimkin). Closes: #584572.
+
+ -- Jonathan Nieder Thu, 23 Feb 2012 13:34:28 -0600
+
gcc-4.6 (4.6.2-15) unstable; urgency=low
* Update to SVN 20120219 (r184373) from the gcc-4_6-branch.
diff --git a/debian/control.m4 b/debia
Package: gcc-4.7
Version: 4.7-20120112-1
Severity: important
Tags: patch
Hi Matthias,
Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 03:45:34PM -0600, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
>> I believe "gcc -print-multiarch" is supposed to do that.
>>
>> $ gcc -m32 -pri
reassign 625357 src:gcc-snapshot 20111210-1
affects 625357 + gcc-4.6
affects 625357 + gcc-4.7
quit
Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> Steve McIntyre wrote:
>> error = add_md5_entry(UNKNOWN, md5, file_name);
>> return 0;
>> }
>>
>> To explain a bit more: the war
Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> At runtime? Do you mean that one needs to change the library path
> also for running the generated executable?
Yes, gcc-snapshot includes a snapshot of libgcc (and libstdc++,
libgcj, libobjc, etc). So checking those libraries' behavior involves
modifying the library path
Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> Do you mean that you don't want gcc-snapshot to be in /usr/bin
> because this would yield problems on autobuilders?
No, I mean that packagers can but should not use
Build-Depends: gcc-snapshot
CC = gcc-snapshot
"Don't do that, then." you might say. But
found 431014 gcc-snapshot/20111210-1
tags 431014 + wontfix
quit
Hi Adam,
Adam Borowski wrote:
> I see no reason why it couldn't simply be shipped in the package
> outright. It's not like it invades anyone's namespace, etc. It would be
> also consistent with all other gcc packages, all having t
reassign 653446 libstdc++6-4.6-dbg 4.6.2-9
severity 652160 minor
merge 652160 653446
quit
Julian Andres Klode wrote:
> Since some weeks, whenever ldconfig is run during an upgrade, I get
> the following warning:
>
> ldconfig: /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libstdc++.so.6.0.16-gdb.py is not an ELF
> f
Hi,
You wrote[1]:
> If you have ideas for warnings/diagnostics visibile in buildd logs
> that are worth having listed in a view like that, please let me
> know.
I'm not sure how your infrastructure copes with something like this,
but I would find it useful to have gcc 4.6's machine-parsable warn
tags 619719 + patch
quit
Simon McVittie wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Mar 2011 at 08:01:26 -0500, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
>> Or set CONFIG_SHELL in debian/rules.
>
> Given that this outdated version of autoconf is only packaged to be able to
> build gcc, I think that's probably
Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> 1. Is there any GCC command-line option that people can use to work
>around this kind of thing (e.g., to add a directory to the front of
>the search order)?
Just for kicks (and in case there's a good place to document it):
mkdir /usr/local
Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> Are there symlinks under /usr/lib/gcc hard-coding the path to libstdc++
> and libgfortran?
Ah, found them. Yes, in libstdc++6-4.x-dev and gfortran-4.x packages
(which presumably also need to be marked broken). Sorry for the noise.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
Matthias Klose wrote:
> libgcc2 and libgcc4 are missing. But I don't like it. Why stop at
> libgcc/libgomp, and not at libstdc++ and libgfortran?
Are there symlinks under /usr/lib/gcc hard-coding the path to libstdc++
and libgfortran?
> For now, I'll add an
> unconditional break on gcc-4.1 and g
Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> 2. Would it make sense to introduce a new package libgcc1-multiarch
>and make libgcc1 into a compatibility package that ships a symlink
>
> /lib/libgcc_s.so.1 -> /lib/$arch/libgcc_s.so.1
>
>for the sake of smooth partial upgrades?
i.e.
Simon Josefsson wrote:
> Jonathan Nieder writes:
>> Upgrading libgcj-bc to 4.6.1-2 fixes it.
[...]
> Did you see this recently? I just uploaded libidn-1.22-2 which happened
> to be built correctly on both sparc and powerpc. So it seems this issue
> is gone again? At lea
Package: libgcc1
Version: 4.6.0-12
Severity: important
Justification: breaks related software
X-Debbugs-Cc: Andrew Chittenden
Hi,
As Andy noticed[*], moving libgcc_s.so.1 from /lib to /lib/$arch
breaks versions of gcc from before that move.
$ echo 'int main(void) { return 0; }' | gcc-4.3 -x c
# to help people find it
severity 630417 serious
# but it is not relevant for stable
tags 630417 + wheezy sid experimental
forcemerge 630417 632053
quit
Hi,
Ondřej Surý wrote:
> the build of src:db on powerpc failed[1] because:
>
> On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 01:25, Steve Langasek wrote:
>> It's a
reassign 630417 libgcj-bc 1.106
affects 630417 + gcj-4.6-jdk
found 630417 gcc-defaults/1.96
fixed 630417 gcc-defaults/1.107
quit
(pruning cc list)
Hi,
Simon Josefsson wrote:
> Ok, so possibly #630417 does not fix the problem? I'm cc'ing the bug
> for further help with debugging. As far as I ca
Matthias Klose wrote:
>* Stop passing -Wno-error=unused-but-set-parameter and
> -Wno-error=unused-but-set-variable if -Werror is present.
> This was a temporary workaround introduced in 4.6.0~rc1-2. Closes:
> #615157.
Yippee! Indeed, -Werror works as expected now. Thanks for your
tags 625357 - moreinfo
retitle 62537 gcc -Wunused-but-set-variable warning is confusing
# bad error message
severity 625357 minor
quit
Steve McIntyre wrote:
> error = add_md5_entry(UNKNOWN, md5, file_name);
> return 0;
> }
>
> To explain a bit more: the warning reported by gcc (unhelpfull
severity 625357 normal
retitle 625357 gcc -Wunused-but-set-variable should not be implied by -Wall (?)
tags 625357 = upstream moreinfo
quit
Hi again,
Steve McIntyre wrote:
> I'll remove the -Werror to stop gcc breaking the build here, but I
> definitely believe that gcc is doing the wrong thing
Hi Steve,
Steve McIntyre wrote:
> I'll remove the -Werror to stop gcc breaking the build here, but I
> definitely believe that gcc is doing the wrong thing here.
> Technically, yes - the variables are set but unused. However, this is
> a far higher level of pedantry than is warranted for -Wall.
Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> It's probably worth fixing that in stable, but I don't think we should
> do an upload to stable just to fix that. I'll include a patch in the SVN
> later, so that it's included in the next upload to stable.
Thanks much. Makes sense.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-
retitle 624660 gcc-multilib pre-depends: linux-libc-dev (>= 2.6.38-8.42), which
is not in sid
quit
Hi,
Hiroyuki Yamamoto wrote:
> The latest upload of gcc-defaults made gcc-multilib pre-depend linux-libc-dev
> (>=2.6.38-8.42),
> but that version doesn't exist, only exists with 2.6.38-4 in sid.
tags 619963 - moreinfo
quit
Hi,
Török Edwin wrote:
> Indeed if I remove __restrict the bug is gone, and if I upgrade to libc6
> 2.13-0exp5, VLC's dec.c seems to be compiled correctly too.
>
> Should gcc-4.6 depend on glibc >= 2.13?
> Or should gcc-4.6 provide a fixed prototype for memmove via fi
Source: autoconf2.64
Version: 2.64-3
Severity: important
Justification: ftbfs with dash from experimental
Tags: upstream
Hi,
Trying to build autoconf2.64 with dash 0.5.6.1-1~exp2 as /bin/sh, I
get
checking for GNU M4 that supports accurate traces... configure: error:
no acceptable m4 co
Package: gcc-4.6
Version: 4.6-20110227-1
Severity: minor
Justification: cosmetic
Tags: upstream
Using -Werror with -pedantic to catch constructs the standard does not
permit:
$ ./test.c; # case (1)
./test.c:6:7: warning: ISO C90 does not support flexible array members
[-pedantic]
$ ./test.c
Matthias Klose wrote:
> fyi, here is a partial rebuild with gcc-4.6 without the work around applied:
>
> http://people.ubuntuwire.org/~wgrant/rebuild-ftbfs-test/test-rebuild-20110111-gcc-natty.html
A quick "grep -F '[-Wunused'" finds nothing, while "grep -F
'[-Werror=unused-but'" finds 34 packag
user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org
severity 613143 wishlist
usertags 613143 + normative discussion
quit
Hi Matthias, Aurelien, Santiago,
Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> Suggested change:
>
> --- /proc/self/fd/13 2011-02-13 09:12:50.142239544 +0100
> +++ policy.sgml 2011-02-13 09:12:01.565231
(-cc: Lucas)
Matthias Klose wrote:
> fyi, here is a partial rebuild with gcc-4.6 without the work around applied:
Thanks. For reference, the simplest way I could find to just download
the files that matter is
wget -r -l 1 -H -Dlaunchpad.net -A gz
http://people.ubuntuwire.org/~wgrant/rebuild-ft
Matthias Klose wrote:
> this would require the build logs of all the *sucessful* builds from this
> rebuild.
Indeed, "grep -F '[-Wunused-but-set'" does not dig up anything.
Of 1010 failed packages:
* 40 failed with
cpp: fatal error: -fuse-linker-plugin, but liblto_plugin.so not found
Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> I already did a rebuild, and gave the results to Matthias. You might
> want to coordinate with him.
> The results are available at
> http://people.debian.org/~lucas/logs/2011/02/14/gcc/
Ah, thank you! I suppose that is what Matthias was hinting at. I
should have just che
(-cc: debian-release)
Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> Matthias Klose wrote:
>> yes, explicitly disabled in the package, for a limited time. If you
>> keep this warning enabled, it will result in too many build
>> failures. Somebody needs to scan the successful build logs of a
>
Package: gcc-4.6
Version: 4.6-20110216-1
Severity: wishlist
Tags: upstream
Hi,
$ gcc -c -std=gnu99 -Wtype-limits -x c - <<-\EOF
enum test_enum {
FOO,
BAR
};
int valid(enum test_enum arg)
{
return arg >= FOO && arg <= BAR;
}
EOF
: In function ‘valid’:
:8:9: warning: compar
Matthias Klose wrote:
> yes, explicitly disabled in the package, for a limited time. If you
> keep this warning enabled, it will result in too many build
> failures. Somebody needs to scan the successful build logs of a
> test rebuild for these warnings, file bug reports, user-tag them
> with de
Package: gcc-4.6
Version: 4.6-20110216-1
Hi,
Turning on -Werror so the warnings don't scroll by.
$ cat test.c
#include
int main(void)
{
int x;
x = printf("hello, world\n");
return 0;
}
$
$ gcc-4.6 -Wall -Werror test.c; echo $?
test.c: In function ‘main’:
test.c:5:6:
dave b wrote:
> On 21 November 2010 02:45, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
>> Also, I am not the GCC maintainer, but from experience of receiving
>> reports from people building software with Ubuntu, I think changing
>> the defaults in GCC is quite wrong.
>
> Why do you think
Hi,
Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> We have dpkg-buildflags available but few packages are using it and it's
> unlikely they will be all converted in the wheezy timeframe.
I agree with the precise meaning of this statement, but the spirit seems
quite wrong. For the packages I am involved in (not many)
Package: gcc-4.5
Version: 4.5.0-8
Severity: minor
Justification: confusing error message
| $ cat testcase.c
| void foo(const char *p, int cond, int a, int b)
| {
| p[cond ? a : b] = '\0';
| }
| $ gcc-4.5 -c testcase.c
| #‘c_maybe_const_expr’ not supported by pp_c_expression#) != 0 ? (unsigne
45 matches
Mail list logo
