ing to version
10.4 fixes it for them, but they'd rather stick to stable releases.
Since the problem seems to be well understood upstream, with a clean
and minimal fix, would it be possible to include that fix in a
bullseye update?
Thanks,
Roland.
-- System Information:
Debian Release:
9:
more undefined references to `__unorddf2' follow
collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status
../../src/gcc/go/Make-lang.in:76: recipe for target 'go1' failed
...
I guess we can close this bug now and open a new one?
Thanks in advance,
Roland
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-gc
ly applied upstream
debian_patches += fix-powerpcspe.diff
endif
...
Can you please remove the ".diff" that gets appended anyway?
Thanks in advance,
Roland
-- System Information:
Debian Release: 7.0
APT prefers unreleased
APT policy: (500, 'unreleased'), (500, 'unsta
ntly being
integrated / pending), I came up with the attached patch for Debian's gcc-4.9.
See also the upstream patches:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-10/msg02605.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-09/msg02625.html
Thanks in advance,
Roland
-- System Information
Source: gcc-4.9
Version: 4.9.1-16
Severity: wishlist
Tags: patch
User: debian-powerpc...@breakpoint.cc
Usertags: powerpcspe
Hi,
I'm attaching a patch to fix the gcc-4.9 build on powerpcspe.
Thanks in advance,
Roland
-- System Information:
Debian Release: 7.0
APT prefers unreleased
patch.
Roland
-- System Information:
Debian Release: 7.0
APT prefers unreleased
APT policy: (500, 'unreleased'), (500, 'unstable')
Architecture: powerpcspe (ppc)
Kernel: Linux 3.9.0-dirty (SMP w/2 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=en_GB.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_GB.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8) (ign
already done with gcc 4.8 related
libraries already, anyway.
Thanks in advance and sorry for the noise if you already planned for this.
Roland
-- System Information:
Debian Release: 7.0
APT prefers unreleased
APT policy: (500, 'unreleased'), (500, 'unstable')
Architect
porters, but unrelated to
>toolchain issues, see
>https://lists.debian.org/debian-powerpc/2013/11/msg00050.html
> - powerpcspe, no feedback, CCing Roland Stigge.
Now that we have fixed gcc-4.7 and gcc-4.8 on powerpcspe, using gcc-4.8
as default compiler on powerpcspe would fine.
Thank
On 12/11/2013 02:34 PM, Matthias Klose wrote:
>> Please include the attached patch (same as the patch in bugzilla) in gcc-4.8
>> when adding --with-long-double-128.
>
> please reference the upstream commit
It's not committed yet, but I will forward the commit as soon as it is...
--
To UNSUBSCR
.
Thanks in advance,
Roland
-- System Information:
Debian Release: 7.0
APT prefers unreleased
APT policy: (500, 'unreleased'), (500, 'unstable')
Architecture: powerpcspe (ppc)
Kernel: Linux 3.9.0-dirty (SMP w/2 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=en_GB.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_GB.UTF-8 (cha
attached patch (same as the patch in bugzilla) in gcc-4.8
when adding --with-long-double-128.
Thanks in advance,
Roland
-- System Information:
Debian Release: 7.0
APT prefers unreleased
APT policy: (500, 'unreleased'), (500, 'unstable')
Architecture: powerpcspe (ppc)
Package: gcc-4.7
Version: 4.7.2-5
Severity: wishlist
Tags: patch
Hi,
please add powerpcspe to the list of architectures with --with-long-double-128
in debian/rules2. I have tested this already, and the default gcc-4.6 as well
as the powerpc port do already.
Thanks in advance,
Roland
e
> toolchain
> for this port. This is the current status, please correct me if I'm wrong.
> - powerpcspe, no feedback, CCing Roland Stigge.
>> Please resume considering to change using unified version of gcc,
>> because FTBFS of many packages occur by e.g. c++11
>
: I'm attaching a fixed symbols file for powerpcspe.
Thanks in advance,
Roland
-- System Information:
Debian Release: 7.0
APT prefers unreleased
APT policy: (500, 'unreleased'), (500, 'unstable')
Architecture: powerpcspe (ppc)
Kernel: Linux 3.9.0-dirty (SMP w/2 CPU c
orted by powerpcspe (only powerpc "Book E").
I actually find the backport in powerpc-abiv2.diff quite nice, so I'm proposing
to use it again and additionally apply the patch from #730020.
Thanks in advance,
Roland
-- System Information:
Debian Release: 7.0
APT prefers unreleased
Source: libffi
Version: 3.0.13-5
Severity: wishlist
Tags: patch sid
User: debian-powerpc...@breakpoint.cc
Usertags: powerpcspe
Hi,
debian/libffi6.symbols.powerpcspe needs an update. Attaching a proposal.
Thanks in advance,
Roland
-- System Information:
Debian Release: 7.0
APT prefers
...
The codebase supports powerpcspe already, but some recent changes broke it.
Attaching a patch that fixes it via the __NO_FPRS__ conditionals already used
in all the other powerpcspe specific places.
Roland
-- System Information:
Debian Release: 7.0
APT prefers unreleased
APT
+6 when it didn't come from gcc-4.8 yet.
Traced back to missing debian/*.symbols.powerpcspe files. The attached patch
fixes this.
Thanks in advance,
Roland
-- System Information:
Debian Release: 7.0
APT prefers unreleased
APT policy: (500, 'unreleased'), (500, 'unstabl
s link (e.g. on i386):
/usr/include/asm -> i386-linux-gnu/asm
Will remove it from rtai.
Roland
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-gcc-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/518ca6dc.9070...@antcom.de
nally, the patch available in http://bugs.debian.org/701796
(gcc-snapshot) needs to be applied also to make gcc-4.8 build on powerpcspe.
Thanks in advance,
Roland
[1] http://wiki.debian.org/PowerPCSPEPort
-- System Information:
Debian Release: 7.0
APT prefers unreleased
APT policy: (500, &
. e500v2 or powerpcspe) case, with_cpu is set exactly to 8548 in
config.gcc.
The attached patch adjusts t-linux accordingly.
Thanks in advance,
Roland
-- System Information:
Debian Release: 7.0
APT prefers unreleased
APT policy: (500, 'unreleased'), (500, 'unstable')
Arch
c-4.6.
Attaching a patch that fixes it.
Thanks in advance,
Roland
[1] http://wiki.debian.org/PowerPCSPEPort
-- System Information:
Debian Release: 7.0
APT prefers unstable
APT policy: (500, 'unstable')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)
Kernel: Linux 3.7.0 (SMP w/4 CPU cores)
Locale: L
Hi,
in short: The new patches you proposed work (as attached for the current
versions in unstable and experimental, resp.)! :-)
Now, we can support powerpc, powerpcspe and spev1, even fixing the bsd
specific stuff (t-spe) upstream.
Thanks,
Roland
--- debian/patches/gcc-multiarch.diff.orig 2012
(neither upstream nor in Debian). Even worse, the (broken)
support for it stands in the way of gnuspe/powerpcspe.
Anyway, will test tm_file/tm_file_list as described above and report back.
Roland
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-gcc-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/50cf18c5.6060...@debian.org
Hi Matthias,
On 14/12/12 15:37, Roland Stigge wrote:
> That's what current upstream does in src/gcc/config.gcc: e500-double.h
> is added to the tm_file (list) to make the distinction between v1 and
> default/v2.
>
> If you don't have another suggestion, I would adjust
On 14/12/12 15:31, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Am 14.12.2012 15:19, schrieb Roland Stigge:
>>> but this one doesn't look for the v1/v0 distinction and uses the same
>>> multiarch
>>> tuple for both. Please bring it in a form which can go upstream.
>>
>
On 14/12/12 14:49, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Am 14.12.2012 14:34, schrieb Roland Stigge:
>> On 14/12/12 14:10, Matthias Klose wrote:
>>> Am 12.12.2012 13:26, schrieb Roland Stigge:
>>>> regarding your request to use t-spe, I'm attaching two patches, for the
>>
On 14/12/12 14:10, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Am 12.12.2012 13:26, schrieb Roland Stigge:
>> regarding your request to use t-spe, I'm attaching two patches, for the
>> unstable and experimental versions of gcc-4.7, respectively.
>>
>> As written before, in Debian, t-sp
In the unlikely event that someone
needs a powerpcspev1 port, we can add it again (and need to pass tm_file
to the Makefile also which wasn't done before).
Thanks in advance,
Roland
--- debian/patches/gcc-multiarch.diff.orig 2012-12-11 21:49:03.494351993 +0100
+++ debian/patches/gcc-multiarc
On 12/11/2012 03:48 PM, Roland Stigge wrote:
> On 12/11/2012 02:01 PM, Matthias Klose wrote:
>> Am 11.12.2012 13:31, schrieb Roland Stigge:
>>
>> both patches look wrong. the definition is found in the t-spe file. find out
>> why
>> it doesn't get used
On 12/11/2012 02:01 PM, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Am 11.12.2012 13:31, schrieb Roland Stigge:
>
> both patches look wrong. the definition is found in the t-spe file. find out
> why
> it doesn't get used.
I guess rs6000/t-linux defining:
MULTIARCH_DIRNAME = powerpc-linux-gnu
-linux-gnu which should be
/usr/include/powerpc-linux-gnuspe for powerpcspe.
(This is similar to http://bugs.debian.org/695654)
Attaching patches for the current revisions in unstable and experimental.
Thanks in advance,
Roland
[1] http://wiki.debian.org/PowerPCSPEPort
-- System Informati
ld be
/usr/include/powerpc-linux-gnuspe for powerpcspe.
The attached patch fixes this.
Thanks in advance,
Roland
[1] http://wiki.debian.org/PowerPCSPEPort
-- System Information:
Debian Release: wheezy/sid
APT prefers unstable
APT policy: (500, 'unstable')
Architecture: i386 (
: Unrecognized opcode:
`lfd'
[...]
Seems that some asm instructions for powerpc don't apply to powerpcspe.
Turns out that the same patch that fixed a similar issue for gcc-4.7 also
applies here. Re-attaching.
Thanks,
Roland
[1] http://wiki.debian.org/PowerPCSPEPort
-- System I
Hi,
as it turned out, powerpcspe can do without multilib for now (building
with new toolchain in unstable). So those two bugs can be closed if
nobody needs it.
Thanks,
Roland
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-gcc-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Troubl
On 16/11/12 20:43, Roland Stigge wrote:
> 2) powerpcspe patching, omitting certain asm that isn't available on
> powerpcspe
>
> This fixes build errors like
>
> /«PKGBUILDDIR»/build/./gcc/xgcc -B/«PKGBUILDDIR»/build/./gcc/
> -B/usr/powerpc-linux-gnuspe/bin/ -B/us
nerated)? What is the right file(s) to patch?
Thanks in advance,
Roland
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-gcc-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/50a69772.7090...@antcom.de
Package: gcc-4.6
Version: 4.6.3-12
Severity: wishlist
Tags: patch, sid
User: debian-powerpc...@breakpoint.cc
Usertags: powerpcspe
Hi,
I'm attaching a patch that fixes building gcc-4.6 on powerpcspe [1].
Thanks,
Roland
[1] http://wiki.debian.org/PowerPCSPEPort
-- System Information:
D
Package: gcc-4.7
Version: 4.7.2-4
Severity: wishlist
Tags: patch sid
User: debian-powerpc...@breakpoint.cc
Usertags: powerpcspe
Hi,
I'm attaching a patch that fixes building gcc-4.7 on powerpcspe [1].
Thanks,
Roland
[1] http://wiki.debian.org/PowerPCSPEPort
-- System Information:
D
Package: gcc-defaults
Version: 1.120
Severity: wishlist
Tags: patch, sid
User: debian-powerpc...@breakpoint.cc
Usertags: powerpcspe
Hi,
I'm attaching a patch that makes gcc-defaults build again on powerpcspe [1].
Thanks,
Roland
[1] http://wiki.debian.org/PowerPCSPEPort
-- S
the respective fix and attached a patch. So you can choose to either
upload 3.0.11 to unstable or use the attached patch.
Thanks in advance,
Roland
[0] http://wiki.debian.org/PowerPCSPEPort
-- System Information:
Debian Release: wheezy/sid
APT prefers unstable
APT policy: (500, 'uns
Sorry, it's binutils, of course. :-)
Maybe this is related to #513636 and/or #602999?
Thanks!
bye,
Roland
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-gcc-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://l
ian/gatling-0.12$
=
(You need libowfat-dev installed.)
Thanks for considering.
bye,
Roland
[1] http://packages.qa.debian.org/g/gatling.html
See the state of my experiments at
http://people.debian.org/~stigge/gatling.tar.gz
-- System Information
> This change is one I can agree with on technical grounds, though it
> will cause a great deal of pain in the short term. Have we got any
> estimates on exactly how much breakage will result before the change
> gets made?
Fedora already made the change a full release cycles ago, and Fedora
packa
> I can't see why you think --as-needed is fundamentally wrong or unnecessary.
It is fundamentally wrong because -lfoo means I demand that the
initializers of libfoo.so run, whether or not I called anything in it.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-gcc-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of
> On 15.11.2010 07:16, Roland McGrath wrote:
> yes, OpenSuse is using --as-needed, but not --no-add-needed.
That is a pretty nutty choice.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-gcc-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.o
> airlied_, does Fedora use --as-needed by default? Fedora 14 too?
> mattst88: yes
The naming of the options makes people easily confused.
--no-add-needed is the only option Fedora's gcc passes.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-gcc-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". T
Hi,
maybe we should try gcc -mlong-calls on java-gnome and/or gtk+?
I can do as soon as I have access to my own machine where I have a key
to the Debian hppa porter box.
bye,
Roland
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-gcc-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe"
no
--- SNAP -
I have the same output without ccache invocation.
ld --version gives me:
GNU ld (GNU Binutils for Debian) 2.20.1-system.20100303
I am using Debian Unstable (Sid/Squeeze) with packages updated some days
ago. If you need further details, pl
Package: g++-4.0
Version: 4.0.2-10
Severity: normal
g++-4.0 (version 4.0.2-10) dies with an ICE on this (invalid) piece of
code:
template
struct foo
{
static const int i;
};
template
const int foo::i = 42;
int
main ()
{
return foo::i;
}
~ % g++ g++-4.0.3-ice.cc
g++-4.0.3-ice.cc: In fun
Package: gcc-4.0
Version: 4.0.2-3
Severity: serious
Hi,
building the package gjdoc 0.7.6-1 in a clean sid build environment
(with pbuilder) on i386 and sparc results in:
=
[...]
gnu/classpath/tools/gjdoc/expr/.libs/JavaLexer
Usually people order Viagra at this site
http://vzkiyi.gv1r2zy9d8gokzg.bursegiemc.info
Strength and wisdom are not opposing values.
Only passions, great passions, can elevate the soul to great things.
There are several good protections against temptations, but the surest is cowardice.
sshs.. get low cost software cds or download!
http://rpr.1qngm01cgtjqy21.cahowci.com
Winter is come and gone, But grief returns with the revolving year.
The past is the only dead thing that smells sweet.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Tro
bd-0.4.1'
make: *** [build-stamp] Error 2
=
With gcc 3.2 an 3.4, it works.
Thanks for considering.
bye,
Roland
Hello Mccauley,
Fantastic, huh? Take a look in your 128 bit secure site
Hope to see you soon.
Irene
http://www.a-z-meds.com/book/
There if you don’t care
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFBJu5KmqjQ0
ettext-0.12 as one string, which
makes translating it impossible. The source code of gcc-3.3 should be
changed at this point. Also note that »notice« could be defined as a
macro, which would make this code illegal. (see the gcc bugs page for
more details :)
Roland
-- System Information:
Debian
Package: gcc-3.3
Version: 1:3.3.3-0pre0
Severity: normal
Some strings in the package gcc-3.3 are not translateable but should be,
for example:
gcc/cp/call.c:2531: str = "candidates are:";
gcc/cp/call.c:2554: str = " ";
-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
Archite
Package: gcc-3.3
Version: 1:3.3.1-0pre0
Severity: minor
Tags: upstream
/* this is foo.c */
#include
#include
#include
extern const char *program_name;
static void printf_checked(const char *fmt, ...)
/[EMAIL PROTECTED] fileSystem, stdout, stderr, errno; @*/
/[EMAIL PROTECTED] fileSystem, *std
Package: gpc-2.1-3.3
Version: 1:3.3.20030507-3
Severity: normal
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~ > gcc kellogs.p
gcc: Internal GPC problem: internal option `--amtmpfile' not given
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~ > gpc-2.1-3.3 kellogs.p
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~ >
-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
Architec
Package: gcc-3.3
Version: 1:3.3-3
Severity: normal
Tags: upstream
$ cat gcc-bug.c
int foo(void);
int foo()
{
return 42;
}
$ gcc -c -Wstrict-prototypes gcc-bug.c
$
I expected gcc to raise a warning in line 3, because a function is
declared with an unknown parameter list instead of an empt
Package: gcj-3.2
Version: 1:3.2.3-0pre3
Severity: normal
(N.B. 1:3.2.3-0pre3 is currently installed; trying to upgrade to
current unstable which is 1:3.2.3-0pre4).
$ sudo apt-get install gcj-3.2
Reading Package Lists... Done
Building Dependency Tree... Done
Some packages could not be installed. T
61 matches
Mail list logo
