>So? Does that mean the bug doesn't affect GCC 4.1? In that case, I
>believe Peter is correct that the bug must be resolved before GCC 4.2
>can enter unstable. Do you agree?
That wasn't text i wrote it was text i was quoting.
I was just asking if anyone knew if there was a bug report on the iss
Ludovic Brenta writes:
> Matthias Klose writes:
> > peter green writes:
> >> >Next GCC 4.2 will be prepared to be included in unstable; a current
> >> >issue is http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4302 which has
> >> >to be resolved before g++-4.2 can enter unstable.
^^^
Matthias Klose writes:
> peter green writes:
>> >Next GCC 4.2 will be prepared to be included in unstable; a current
>> >issue is http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4302 which has
>> >to be resolved before g++-4.2 can enter unstable.
>> That bug is marked as "resolved invalid" with a re
peter green writes:
> >Next GCC 4.2 will be prepared to be included in unstable; a current
> >issue is http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4302 which has
> >to be resolved before g++-4.2 can enter unstable.
> That bug is marked as "resolved invalid" with a reply "Those symbols are
> for
>Next GCC 4.2 will be prepared to be included in unstable; a current
>issue is http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4302 which has
>to be resolved before g++-4.2 can enter unstable.
That bug is marked as "resolved invalid" with a reply "Those symbols are
for glibc. Why do they have libstd
5 matches
Mail list logo
