On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 09:40:36PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 07:42:28PM +0100, Steven Chamberlain wrote:
> > On 31/05/12 07:59, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > > FWIW, it has been confirmed to be gcc 4.7 miscompiling. It is supposed
> > > to be fixed in upcoming 4.7.1.
> >
> > The
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 07:42:28PM +0100, Steven Chamberlain wrote:
> On 31/05/12 07:59, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > FWIW, it has been confirmed to be gcc 4.7 miscompiling. It is supposed
> > to be fixed in upcoming 4.7.1.
>
> The Mozilla bug report referred to GCC PR/53516. Could you please check
> i
On 31/05/12 07:59, Mike Hommey wrote:
> FWIW, it has been confirmed to be gcc 4.7 miscompiling. It is supposed
> to be fixed in upcoming 4.7.1.
The Mozilla bug report referred to GCC PR/53516. Could you please check
if this was fixed by gcc-4.7 4.7.0-11 which was accepted in unstable today?
> g
On 31.05.2012 14:59, Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 10:04:07PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
>> 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
.
>>
On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 10:04:07PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> 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++
On Sun, 2012-05-27 at 08:34 +0200, Yves-Alexis Perez wrote:
> On dim., 2012-05-27 at 00:52 +0200, Svante Signell wrote:
> > On Sat, 2012-05-26 at 23:51 +0200, Philipp Kern wrote:
...
> > With all due respect, So far I have not seen any bug report causing the
> > gcc-4.7 as default compiler being se
Hi,
> GCC 4.7 was blamed for this, but now I'm looking back and wondering if
> that was fair, and if it was such a bad thing all of this happened.
>
> The solution in gpsd VCS seems to have been applying a rather large
> changeset, fixing things from Coverity static analysis, potential buffer
> o
On 20/05/12 22:16, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
>> After rebuilding gpsd today I had to realize that the stack protector makes
>> one
>> of the tools segfault since it was built with gcc 4.7. If gpsd wouldn't ship
>
> Actually I'm not exactly sure if it is the stack protectors' fault, but it is
> definit
On dim., 2012-05-27 at 00:52 +0200, Svante Signell wrote:
> On Sat, 2012-05-26 at 23:51 +0200, Philipp Kern wrote:
> > Svante,
> >
> > am Sat, May 26, 2012 at 10:58:10PM +0200 hast du folgendes geschrieben:
> > > On Sat, 2012-05-26 at 19:39 +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
> > > > On Sun, May 13, 2012
On Sat, 2012-05-26 at 23:51 +0200, Philipp Kern wrote:
> Svante,
>
> am Sat, May 26, 2012 at 10:58:10PM +0200 hast du folgendes geschrieben:
> > On Sat, 2012-05-26 at 19:39 +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
> > > On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 19:56:15 +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > > > sorry, thinko. I did
Svante,
am Sat, May 26, 2012 at 10:58:10PM +0200 hast du folgendes geschrieben:
> On Sat, 2012-05-26 at 19:39 +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
> > On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 19:56:15 +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > > sorry, thinko. I did mean End of May.
> > So we're at the end of May. Can we have that
Svante Signell writes:
> On Sat, 2012-05-26 at 19:39 +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
>> On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 19:56:15 +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
>>> sorry, thinko. I did mean End of May.
>> So we're at the end of May. Can we have that revert now, or do I need
>> to NMU?
> Stop nagging about
On Sat, 2012-05-26 at 19:39 +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
> On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 19:56:15 +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
>
> > sorry, thinko. I did mean End of May.
> >
> So we're at the end of May. Can we have that revert now, or do I need
> to NMU?
Stop nagging about the default gcc compiler
On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 19:56:15 +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> sorry, thinko. I did mean End of May.
>
So we're at the end of May. Can we have that revert now, or do I need
to NMU?
Cheers,
Julien
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On 05/20/2012 11:13 PM, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> On 05/14/2012 10:27 AM, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
>> On 14.05.2012 09:10, Matthias Klose wrote:
>>> On 13.05.2012 21:58, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
On 13.05.2012 18:42, Matthias Klose wrote:
> On 13.05.2012 21:22, Julien Cristau wrote:
>> On Sun,
On 05/14/2012 10:27 AM, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> On 14.05.2012 09:10, Matthias Klose wrote:
>> On 13.05.2012 21:58, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
>>> 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 wrot
On 14.05.2012 09:10, Matthias Klose wrote:
On 13.05.2012 21:58, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
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 w
On 13.05.2012 21:58, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> 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
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 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
On 08.05.2012 19:14, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> Matthias Klose (08/05/2012):
>> mbiebl: that might be the gmp10 bug KiBi, can't reproduce
>> the libchamplain ICE locally. could you do a local build as well?
>>
>> and I didn't get a reply on that.
>
> Because, if you didn't get the memo, we're tr
Matthias Klose (08/05/2012):
> stop blaming the compiler for unrelated build failures. You did so already
> yesterday:
>
> awesome, libchamplain ftbfs with an ICE in gcc-4.7
> yeah for switching the default compiler
> doko: It looks like I'm going to take up your offer. Please fix that.
> dok
On 08.05.2012 17:55, Matthias Klose wrote:
stop blaming the compiler for unrelated build failures. You did so
already
yesterday:
awesome, libchamplain ftbfs with an ICE in gcc-4.7
yeah for switching the default compiler
doko: It looks like I'm going to take up your offer. Please
fix that.
Matthias Klose (08/05/2012):
> mbiebl: that might be the gmp10 bug
> KiBi, can't reproduce the libchamplain ICE locally. could you do a
> local build as well?
>
> and I didn't get a reply on that.
Because, if you didn't get the memo, we're trying to get packages built,
which we finally managed
On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 18:55:49 +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> awesome, libchamplain ftbfs with an ICE in gcc-4.7
> yeah for switching the default compiler
> doko: It looks like I'm going to take up your offer. Please fix that.
> doko: you have your first problem of gcc-4.7 breaking an ongoin
On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 18:55:49 +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> strigi was fixed, the gnome-commander and hugin builds were both tried on
> brahms (and did succeed on other architectures).
>
Other architectures didn't switch to 4.7.
> > What's worse is that at least for the last two, there were
On 08.05.2012 14:44, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> Matthias Klose (07/05/2012):
>> see my email to -release. It's ahead of the freeze, and the fix rate for
>> the build failures shows that all these issues can be fixed even before
>> the freeze. It is not a transition which requires binNMU's itself (ex
Matthias Klose (07/05/2012):
> see my email to -release. It's ahead of the freeze, and the fix rate for the
> build failures shows that all these issues can be fixed even before the
> freeze. It is not a transition which requires binNMU's itself (except for the
> libobjc stuff), and shouldn't affe
On 07.05.2012 20:19, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> Julien Cristau (07/05/2012):
>> 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
Julien Cristau (07/05/2012):
> 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 hurd-i386.
>
> Please revert this ch
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 hurd-i386.
Please revert this change. There are still too many open bugs on
h
40 matches
Mail list logo
