[Bug other/12782] ffi.h #defines ffi_type_[us]long wrong on 32bit arches

2003-10-31 Thread green at redhat dot com
PLEASE REPLY TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ONLY, *NOT* [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12782 green at redhat dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Sta

Bug#218459: gcc: duplicate declaration of va_list

2003-10-31 Thread Magossa'nyi A'rpa
Package: gcc Version: 2:2.95.4-14 Severity: minor When compiling libzorpll on alpha, I got the following warning. I don't know if it is a libc or gcc bug, I file it against gcc, because libc uses #ifdef __USE_XOPEN # ifdef __GNUC__ # ifndef _VA_LIST_DEFINED libc version: ii libc6.1-dev2.2.5

Bug#218459: gcc: duplicate declaration of va_list

2003-10-31 Thread Falk Hueffner
"Magossa'nyi A'rpa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > When compiling libzorpll on alpha, I got the following > warning. > > In file included from /usr/include/resolv.h:62, > from main.c:49: > /usr/include/stdio.h:70: warning: redefinition of `va_list' > /usr/lib/gcc-lib/alpha-linux/2

Bug#171778: Undefined symbols libc.so.6

2003-10-31 Thread Manoj Verma, Noida
Hi, While browsing internet I got reference to Bug#171778. I am getting similar kind of errors, while doing following: $ arm-linux-gcc sample.c I get lots of "Undefined references" as shown below: ###

[Bug target/12371] [3.4 regression] [m68k-linux] bootstrap error in make compare

2003-10-31 Thread bernie at develer dot com
PLEASE REPLY TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ONLY, *NOT* [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12371 --- Additional Comments From bernie at develer dot com 2003-10-31 21:21 --- These are my m68k patches from the relevant time frame: 2003-09-03 Bernardo Innocenti <[EMAI

Results for 3.4 20031030 (experimental) testsuite on hppa-unknown-linux-gnu

2003-10-31 Thread Matthias Klose
LAST_UPDATED: Thu Oct 30 22:06:32 UTC 2003 Native configuration is hppa-unknown-linux-gnu === g++ tests === Running target unix XPASS: g++.dg/ext/lvalue1.C not an lvalue (test for errors, line 7) FAIL: g++.dg/ext/pretty1.C scan-assembler top level FAIL: g++.dg/ext/pretty2.C (tes

Results for 3.4 20031030 (experimental) testsuite on i486-pc-linux-gnu

2003-10-31 Thread Matthias Klose
LAST_UPDATED: Thu Oct 30 22:06:32 UTC 2003 === ACATS tests === FAIL: c34005a FAIL: c34005d FAIL: c34005g FAIL: c34005j FAIL: cc3601a FAIL: cxb3010 FAIL: cxb3014 FAIL: cxb3015 === ACATS Summary === # of expected passes 2314 # of unexpected failures 8 Native configur

[Bug other/12315] [3.4 Regression] ICE using -p with functions returning structs

2003-10-31 Thread cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org
PLEASE REPLY TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ONLY, *NOT* [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12315 --- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2003-11-01 00:48 --- Subject: Bug 12315 CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc Module name:gcc Changes by: [EMAIL

[Bug other/12315] [3.4 Regression] ICE using -p with functions returning structs

2003-10-31 Thread amodra at gcc dot gnu dot org
PLEASE REPLY TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ONLY, *NOT* [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12315 amodra at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug c++/12421] [3.4 regression] ICE with -pg

2003-10-31 Thread amodra at gcc dot gnu dot org
PLEASE REPLY TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ONLY, *NOT* [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12421 Bug 12421 depends on bug 12315, which changed state. Bug 12315 Summary: [3.4 Regression] ICE using -p with functions returning structs http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12

FWD: gcc in debian/unstable

2003-10-31 Thread Randolph Chung
FYI -randolph - Forwarded message from David Mosberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - From: David Mosberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2003 15:20:36 -0800 To: debian-ia64@lists.debian.org Subject: gcc in debian/unstable Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1242 W

Re: FWD: gcc in debian/unstable

2003-10-31 Thread Daniel Jacobowitz
Are you sure he doesn't mean --enable-checking? --enable-debug should not affect compile time significantly. On Fri, Oct 31, 2003 at 08:44:49PM -0800, Randolph Chung wrote: > FYI -randolph > > - Forwarded message from David Mosberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - > > From: David Mosberger <[EMA

Re: FWD: gcc in debian/unstable

2003-10-31 Thread Randolph Chung
In reference to a message from Daniel Jacobowitz, dated Oct 31: > Are you sure he doesn't mean --enable-checking? --enable-debug should > not affect compile time significantly. yup, David confirmed he meant enable-checking. thanks for the quick reply. randolph -- Randolph Chung Debian GNU/Linux