Martin Michlmayr writes:
> * Martin Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-03-20 10:03]:
> > I would have thought that a compiler that miscompiles trivial for loops and
> > thus inserts bugs in lots of programs compiled with it is unsuitable for
> > release, i.e. severity serious.
>
> I don't know... I co
* Martin Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-03-20 10:03]:
> I would have thought that a compiler that miscompiles trivial for loops and
> thus inserts bugs in lots of programs compiled with it is unsuitable for
> release, i.e. severity serious.
I don't know... I compiled >5000 packages and none showed
On Sun, Mar 19, 2006 at 11:13:13PM +, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> severity 356896 important
I would have thought that a compiler that miscompiles trivial for loops and
thus inserts bugs in lots of programs compiled with it is unsuitable for
release, i.e. severity serious.
> Do you have a test c
Martin Michlmayr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Falk Hueffner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-03-20 00:20]:
>> I mean 4.2 mainline. I don't know yet whether 4.1 mainline is fixed.
>> I'm pretty sure if it isn't already, it will get fixed.
>
> FWIW, I'd feel more comfortable if you'd explicitly try to m
severity 356896 important
thanks
* Martin Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-03-19 20:56]:
> BTW#2, apcalc also failed with gcc 4.0 on arm and m68k and I haven't
> verified whether these problems still exist in 4.1. So you might want to
> test somewhere else to avoid searching for two bugs at the same
* Falk Hueffner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-03-19 22:44]:
> I can reproduce this with gcc-snapshot, but not with 4.2.0 20060304,
> so it's probably fixed already, at least on mainline.
If you can not reproduce it with 4.2.0, does this mean that a future
version of 4._1_ will contain the fix? Is tha
* Falk Hueffner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-03-20 00:20]:
> I mean 4.2 mainline. I don't know yet whether 4.1 mainline is fixed.
> I'm pretty sure if it isn't already, it will get fixed.
FWIW, I'd feel more comfortable if you'd explicitly try to make sure
it gets fixed in 4.1. But I've no idea how
Martin Michlmayr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Falk Hueffner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-03-19 22:44]:
>> I can reproduce this with gcc-snapshot, but not with 4.2.0 20060304,
>> so it's probably fixed already, at least on mainline.
>
> If you can not reproduce it with 4.2.0, does this mean that a
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> severity 356896 important
Bug#356896: gcc 4.1 miscompiles apcalc (again)
Severity set to `important'.
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs da
Hi,
I can reproduce this with gcc-snapshot, but not with 4.2.0 20060304,
so it's probably fixed already, at least on mainline.
--
Falk
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> reassign 356896 gcc-4.1 4.1.0-0
Bug#356896: FTBFS with GCC 4.1: test suite failure
Bug reassigned from package `apcalc' to `gcc-4.1'.
> severity 356896 serious
Bug#356896: FTBFS with GCC 4.1: test suite failure
Severity set to `seri
11 matches
Mail list logo
