Accepted:
gcc-snapshot_20030531-2.diff.gz
to pool/main/g/gcc-snapshot/gcc-snapshot_20030531-2.diff.gz
gcc-snapshot_20030531-2.dsc
to pool/main/g/gcc-snapshot/gcc-snapshot_20030531-2.dsc
gcc-snapshot_20030531-2_i386.deb
to pool/main/g/gcc-snapshot/gcc-snapshot_20030531-2_i386.deb
Announcing t
Accepted:
gcc-snapshot_20030531-2_hppa.deb
to pool/main/g/gcc-snapshot/gcc-snapshot_20030531-2_hppa.deb
Thank you for your contribution to Debian.
On Sat, May 31, 2003 at 10:11:05PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> It seems to be getting confused because of the classpath. This error goes
> away if you do this:
>
> mizar:[/tmp/tau-2.12.8/tools/src] gcj -C jRacy/*.java
>
> instead (note the cwd).
OK, thanks for the hint. But that still look
Yann Dirson writes:
> On Sat, May 31, 2003 at 10:11:05PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > It seems to be getting confused because of the classpath. This error goes
> > away if you do this:
> >
> > mizar:[/tmp/tau-2.12.8/tools/src] gcj -C jRacy/*.java
> >
> > instead (note the cwd).
>
> OK, tha
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> tags 195480 + upstream
Bug#195480: gcj-3.3 thinks a decl conflicts with itself
There were no tags set.
Tags added: upstream
> retitle 195480 [fixed in 3.4] gcj-3.3 thinks a decl conflicts with itself
Bug#195480: gcj-3.3 thinks a decl conflicts with its
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> # submitted Debian report #195424 to gcc-gnats as PR 11052
> # http://gcc.gnu.org/PR11052
> forwarded 195424 http://gcc.gnu.org/PR11052
Bug#195424: [3.3 -O2 arm regression] seg fault when compiling xfree86
Noted your statement that Bug has been forwarde
> I am willing to move those files of SableVM away from /usr/include
> (to sth. like /usr/include/sablevm) *IF* there's agreement that all
> JVMs don't install their jni.h type files in /usr/include.
I agree, but it's an upstream issue. See:
- http://gcc.gnu.org/PR7305
- the thread starting at
h
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> # submitted Debian report #195483 to gcc-gnats as PR 7305
> # http://gcc.gnu.org/PR7305
> forwarded 195483 http://gcc.gnu.org/PR7305
Bug#195483: libsablevm1-dev conflicts with gcj
Noted your statement that Bug has been forwarded to http://gcc.gnu.org/PR
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> # submitted Debian report #195484 to gcc-gnats as PR 7305
> # http://gcc.gnu.org/PR7305
> forwarded 195484 http://gcc.gnu.org/PR7305
Bug#195484: libgcj4 and libsablevm1-dev both include /usr/include/jni.h
Noted your statement that Bug has been forwarded
Jack Howarth writes:
> Package: libgcj2
> Version: 3.0.4-12
>The shared library, /usr/lib/libgcj.so.2, has undefined
> non-weak symbols as shown with below...
[...]
libgcj2 (and libgcj3) are removed from unstable. could you update this
report for libgcj4?
Thanks, Matthias
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> # submitted Debian report #195237 to gcc-gnats as PR 11053
> # http://gcc.gnu.org/PR11053
> forwarded 195237 http://gcc.gnu.org/PR11053
Bug#195237: gcc 3.3 ICE with kernel 2.4.20; sched.c
Noted your statement that Bug has been forwarded to http://gcc.gn
Your message dated Sun, 1 Jun 2003 15:29:02 +0200
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line closing report, local problem
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your respo
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> # submitted Debian report #194749 to gcc-gnats as PR 11054
> # http://gcc.gnu.org/PR11054
> forwarded 194749 http://gcc.gnu.org/PR11054
Bug#194749: gcc-3.3: [m68k] ICE while building sane-backends 1.0.12-1
Noted your statement that Bug has been forwarde
Your message dated Sun, 1 Jun 2003 16:03:14 +0200
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line closing unreproducible error
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your respon
Your message dated Sun, 1 Jun 2003 16:06:38 +0200
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#194242: acknowledged by developer (Re: Bug#194242:
drivers/atm/ambassador.c:301:21: pasting "." and "start" does not give a valid
preprocessing token)
has caused the attached Bug report to b
Your message dated Sun, 1 Jun 2003 16:06:38 +0200
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#194242: acknowledged by developer (Re: Bug#194242:
drivers/atm/ambassador.c:301:21: pasting "." and "start" does not give a valid
preprocessing token)
has caused the attached Bug report to b
PLEASE REPLY TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ONLY, *NOT* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10587
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2003-06-01 14:38 ---
Subject: Re: Bug#189365: [3.2/3.3 regression] [ia64] ICE in copy_to_mode_reg
compiling libquicktime
[
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> I can reproduce the error in this report on gcc 3.1, 3.2.3, 3.3 branch and
> mainline (20030514) on
> ia64-hpux cross. Could you check what version it was that this did compile
> correctly under?
Not exactly, the last successful build was
http://buildd.debian.org/fe
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2003-05-25 02:46 ---
> Can you provide the precompiled sources that cause this?
Jeroen, please can you provide the preprocessed sources?
PLEASE REPLY TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ONLY, *NOT* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10892
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2003-06-01 14:34 ---
Subject: Re: Bug#179906: do not Suggest attributes in ANSI mode
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> --- Ad
Matthias,
This issue doesn't exist for /usr/lib/libgcj.so.4
ldd -r /usr/lib/libgcj.so.4
libpthread.so.0 => /lib/libpthread.so.0 (0x0fae)
libdl.so.2 => /lib/libdl.so.2 (0x0fdd)
libz.so.1 => /lib/libz.so.1 (0x0fc8)
libgcc_s.so.1 => /lib/libgcc_s.so.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> with gcc 3.1 and 3.2.3 cross compilers for arm-elf, I get an "illegal
> instruction" on this testcase.
> With gcc 3.3 branch and mainline (20030509), the code compiles fine. Would it
> be possible for you
> to check whether this problem still occurs on gcc 3.3? Thank
Package: gcc-3.3
Version: 1:3.3-2
Severity: important
-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
Architecture: i386
Kernel: Linux ubik 2.4.17 #12 Sat Jan 25 20:17:14 CET 2003 i686
Locale: LANG=pl_PL, LC_CTYPE=pl_PL
Versions of packages gcc-3.3 depends on:
ii binutils
PLEASE REPLY TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ONLY, *NOT* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10206
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2003-06-01 14:58 ---
Subject: Re: Bug#186185: [3.2/3.3/3.4 regression][arm] ICE in
emit-rtl.c:change_address_1 when compili
PLEASE REPLY TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ONLY, *NOT* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10206
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WA
On Sun, Jun 01, 2003 at 04:28:40PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
>
> Jeroen, please can you provide the preprocessed sources?
>From what I can reconstruct now, it's just a matter of what a combination of
conflicting options (-Wmissing-noreturn and -ansi) should mean. Never mind;
please close the
PLEASE REPLY TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ONLY, *NOT* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10892
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2003-06-01 15:18 ---
Subject: Re: Bug#179906: do not Suggest attributes in ANSI mode
On Sun, Jun 01, 2003 at 04:28:40PM +02
Your message dated Sun, 1 Jun 2003 16:59:17 +0200
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#193953: /usr/lib/libgcj.so.2 improperly linked
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case
PLEASE REPLY TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ONLY, *NOT* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10892
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WA
Your message dated Sun, 1 Jun 2003 18:13:11 +0200
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#179906: [Bug c/10892] do not Suggest attributes in ANSI
mode
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this
Your message dated Sun, 1 Jun 2003 19:54:14 +0200
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#195682: gcc-3.3: gcc 3.3 is unable to compile kernel
2.4.17 on x86 (parse errors)
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been
PLEASE REPLY TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ONLY, *NOT* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11053
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UN
PLEASE REPLY TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ONLY, *NOT* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10890
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
reopen 194242
reassign 194242 kernel
retitle 194242 kernel: gcc 3.3 should be able to compile the kernel
thanks, control
On Sun, Jun 01, 2003 at 09:18:08AM -0500, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote:
> This is an automatic notification regarding your Bug report
> #194242: gcc: defaulting to 3.3 preve
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> reopen 194242
Bug#194242: gcc: defaulting to 3.3 prevents compilation of the kernel
Bug#194196: Can't compile kernel 2.4.20
Bug reopened, originator not changed.
> reassign 194242 kernel
Bug#194242: gcc: defaulting to 3.3 prevents compilation of the ke
LAST_UPDATED: Sat May 31 08:01:13 UTC 2003
Native configuration is i386-pc-linux-gnu
=== g++ tests ===
Running target unix
FAIL: g++.dg/eh/simd-2.C (test for excess errors)
WARNING: g++.dg/eh/simd-2.C compilation failed to produce executable
FAIL: g++.dg/ext/pretty1.C scan-assem
LAST_UPDATED: Sat May 31 08:01:13 UTC 2003
Native configuration is s390-ibm-linux-gnu
=== g++ tests ===
Running target unix
FAIL: g++.dg/eh/forced1.C execution test
FAIL: g++.dg/ext/pretty1.C scan-assembler top level
FAIL: g++.dg/ext/pretty2.C (test for excess errors)
WARNING: g
LAST_UPDATED: Sat May 31 08:01:13 UTC 2003
Native configuration is ia64-unknown-linux-gnu
=== g++ tests ===
Running target unix
FAIL: g++.dg/ext/pretty1.C scan-assembler top level
FAIL: g++.dg/ext/pretty2.C (test for excess errors)
WARNING: g++.dg/ext/pretty2.C compilation faile
LAST_UPDATED: Sat May 31 08:01:13 UTC 2003
Native configuration is hppa-unknown-linux-gnu
=== g++ tests ===
Running target unix
FAIL: g++.dg/compat/break/bitfield7 cp_compat_x_tst.o compile
UNRESOLVED: g++.dg/compat/break/bitfield7 cp_compat_x_tst.o-cp_compat_y_tst.o
link
UNRE
LAST_UPDATED:
Native configuration is i386-pc-linux-gnu
=== g++ tests ===
Running target unix
XPASS: g++.other/init5.C Execution test
=== g++ Summary ===
# of expected passes7378
# of unexpected successes 1
# of expected failures 88
LAST_UPDATED: Sat May 31 08:01:13 UTC 2003
Native configuration is alpha-unknown-linux-gnu
=== libjava tests ===
Running target unix
FAIL: initexc execution - gij test
FAIL: initexc execution - gij test
=== libjava Summary ===
# of expected passes30
LAST_UPDATED:
Native configuration is ia64-unknown-linux-gnu
=== g++ tests ===
Running target unix
XPASS: g++.other/init5.C Execution test
=== g++ Summary ===
# of expected passes7187
# of unexpected successes 1
# of expected failures
LAST_UPDATED:
Native configuration is hppa-unknown-linux-gnu
=== g++ tests ===
Running target unix
XPASS: g++.mike/eh33.C (test for excess errors)
XPASS: g++.mike/eh33.C Execution test
XPASS: g++.mike/eh50.C (test for excess errors)
XPASS: g++.mike/eh50.C Execution test
XPASS:
LAST_UPDATED:
Native configuration is sparc-unknown-linux-gnu
=== g++ tests ===
Running target unix
FAIL: g++.law/profile1.C Execution test
XPASS: g++.other/init5.C Execution test
=== g++ Summary ===
# of expected passes7352
# of unexpected failur
The above file is included in sablevm1-dev, libgcj3-dev, and libgcj4-dev.
Kaffe has it at /usr/lib/kaffe/include/jni.h. gcc-snapshot has it at
/usr/lib/gcc-snapshot/include/jni.h.
In discussion with the sablevm maintainer, he maintains that jni.h is a global
file, and is not unique to each vm. H
PLEASE REPLY TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ONLY, *NOT* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10587
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WA
PLEASE REPLY TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ONLY, *NOT* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11052
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
Hi,
what exactly makes you think 194513 and 194345 are the same bug? One
seems to occur in the preprocessor (unfortunately there's not enough
material in the bug report to reproduce it), the other in the C
compiler.
--
Falk
On Mon, Jun 02, 2003 at 03:43:50AM +0200, Falk Hueffner wrote:
> what exactly makes you think 194513 and 194345 are the same bug? One
> seems to occur in the preprocessor (unfortunately there's not enough
> material in the bug report to reproduce it), the other in the C
> compiler.
Because I expe
49 matches
Mail list logo
