As requested by YunQiang Su via mail
===
Please feel free to respond to this email if you don't understand why
your files were rejected, or if you upload new files which address our
concerns.
The version of the source package (2) does not show up in the binary version.
So neither rebuilds with a new changelog, nor bin-nmus will work. You already
add a "cross1", so why not add it there?
===
Please feel free to respond to this email if you don't understand why
your files were reje
On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 08:27:29AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> On 22.08.2018 06:00, Bastian Blank wrote:
> > The version of the source package (2) does not show up in the binary
> > version.
> > So neither rebuilds with a new changelog, nor bin-nmus will work. You
Hi
On Sat, Oct 28, 2023 at 07:57:54PM +1300, rhys wrote:
> char myBuf[] = { '\x01', '\x04', '\x31', '\x00', '\x00', '\x1D', '\x7E',
> '\xF7' };
> printf ("sizeof (myBuf) = %d\n", sizeof (myBuf));
This is an array, so sizeof() shows the length of that array. Making it
longer would have showe
On Sat, Nov 25, 2023 at 10:30:39AM +0100, Bastian Blank wrote:
> Thank you for purposefully not mentioning that this only applies if you
> use the bothed(?) gcc spec override to build with musl instead of glibc.
> Can you show it is broken if using the standard toolchain as asked
Hi
On Thu, Jan 11, 2024 at 10:25:39AM +0100, Bastian Blank wrote:
> Linux 6.7 fails to build on at least i386 and armhf. Even it now
> manages to make the compiler fail to allocate memory:
> | cc1: out of memory allocating 135266296 bytes after a total of 235675648
> bytes
I just t
Hi Arthur
On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 08:32:18AM +0930, Arthur Marsh wrote:
> results in machine shutdown. Setting CONCURRENCY_LEGVEL=1 avoids the problem.
While gcc may use the system in unusual ways, it does not have the
permissions to shutdown a system.
If a user space program breaks a system, it
On Wed, Sep 21, 2022 at 11:43:07AM +0100, Philip Wyett wrote:
> Upstream believes this to be an issue with GCC.
> See comment and reproducer code:
> https://trac.filezilla-project.org/ticket/12777#comment:1
> Needs to be reallocated to GCC.
Sorry, no, this is a bug in filezilla. The given includ
On Sun, Mar 19, 2023 at 11:47:21PM +, James Addison wrote:
> Would it be fair to raise the severity of this bug to a release-critical
> level?
No, it would be fair to remove Geode LX from the set of supported
processors. Those are now over 15 years old.
Bastian
--
No one wants war.
gency=low
+
+ * fix cross compile.
+
+ -- Bastian Blank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sun, 23 Feb 2003 08:57:02 +0100
+
gcc-3.2 (1:3.2.3ds0-0pre1) unstable; urgency=low
* gcc-3.2.3 prerelease (CVS 20030210)
diff -urN gcc-3.2-3.2.3ds0.orig/debian/control.m4
gcc-3.2-3.2.3ds0/debian/control.m4
--- gc
On Sun, Feb 23, 2003 at 12:05:32PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > it changes the following:
> > - debian/control.m4:
>
> some chunks did not cleanly apply. attched is a control file for
> m68k. Please could you check it and send me diffs how it should look
> like.
attached. one problem with tha
On Sun, Feb 23, 2003 at 01:33:40PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > attached. one problem with that: does the compiler needs cpp?
> yes. although the separation doesn't make much sense starting with 3.3
> (integrated cpp).
at least with the current source package the compiler doesn't call the
cpp.
Package: gcc-defaults
Version: 1.5
Severity: important
built packages versions are incorrect if gcc-defaults is built with nmu
versioning
| $ echo "Version: 1.5" | awk -F. '/^Version:/ {print $NF}'
| 5
| $ echo "Version: 1.5.1" | awk -F. '/^Version:/ {print $NF}'
| 1
bastian
--
What kind of lo
Package: gcc-snapshot
Version: 20071020-1
Severity: serious
There was an error while trying to autobuild your package:
> Automatic build of gcc-snapshot_20071020-1 on debian-31.osdl.marist.edu by
> sbuild/s390 98
[...]
> ls -l debian/tmp/usr/lib/gcc-snapshot/bin
> total 41772
> -rwxr-xr-x 1 root
reassign 448149 quantlib-swig
thanks
On Fri, Oct 26, 2007 at 09:44:19AM -0500, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
>
> http://buildd.debian.org/fetch.cgi?&pkg=quantlib-swig&ver=0.8.0-3&arch=s390&stamp=1192790393&file=log
>
> I am reassigning this to g++-4.2 as the message suggests.
Nack. quantlib-swig
On Tue, Nov 20, 2007 at 03:09:17PM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
> The following test program will result in "OMG,-10==10 in linux!" when
> compiled with both gcc-4.1 and gcc-4.2.
Further information:
| int i = 2;
| int a = -10 * abs (i - 1);
| int b = 10 * abs (i - 1);
compiles to (original tree)
| in
On Sun, Oct 21, 2007 at 11:19:49AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> - check how the libstdc++ 64 multilib build is configured (config.status)
It got broken somewhere between 20061022-1 and 20070326-1.
20061022-1:
| Adding multilib support to Makefile in ../../../src/libstdc++-v3
| multidirs=64
| w
On Thu, Nov 29, 2007 at 09:36:08PM +0100, Bastian Blank wrote:
> It lacks a 64bit build of libgcc, which is AFAIK the first thing which
> is built.
I forgot that large parts of the multilib support is added by patches.
So the following happens:
config-ml.in tries to link something with -m
On Thu, Nov 29, 2007 at 10:33:48PM +0100, Bastian Blank wrote:
> I forgot that large parts of the multilib support is added by patches.
> So the following happens:
>
> config-ml.in tries to link something with -m64. As this is the libgcc,
> which emits crtbegin.o for not-main-ar
On Mon, Jan 28, 2008 at 03:46:23PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> these are defined in libgcc.a (linking with -static-libgcc should
> resolve these symbols).
No. libgcc is not compatible with the kernel ABI.
Bastian
--
The best diplomat I know is a fully activated phaser bank.
-
Package: gnat-4.2
Version: 4.2.3-1
Severity: serious
There was an error while trying to autobuild your package:
> Automatic build of gnat-4.2_4.2.3-1 on debian-31.osdl.marist.edu by
> sbuild/s390 98
[...]
>-I- -I. -Iada -I../../src/gcc/ada ../../src/gcc/ada/memtrack.adb -o
> ada/memtrac
Package: gnat-4.3
Version: 4.3.0-1
Severity: serious
There was an error while trying to autobuild your package:
> Automatic build of gnat-4.3_4.3.0-1 on debian-31.osdl.marist.edu by
> sbuild/s390 98
[...]
> checking whether clearerr_unlocked is declared... yes
> checking whether feof_unlocked is
On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 08:23:10PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> What about fixing the etch kernel?
The kernel will get fixed.
Bastian
--
Each kiss is as the first.
-- Miramanee, Kirk's wife, "The Paradise Syndrome",
stardate 4842.6
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, emai
On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 10:02:22PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> amd64 and i386 side note: the gcc-4.3 4.3.0-2 upload has a patch
> reenabling the cld instruction when stringops are used; this patch is
> neither in the gcc-4_3-branch or in the trunk.
I discussed with doko a bit and have to propos
On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 09:26:51AM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> Problem is that memcpy/memmove/memset probably generate rep stos; in
> the end, I believe memset/memcpy/memmove to be async signal safe, and
> those are inlined fully in many cases.
Please show the sections of POSIX docu or the r
On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 09:38:32AM +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> Bastian Blank a écrit :
> > I discussed with doko a bit and have to propose another solution. This
> > solution have a prequisite: gcc must not generate string ops without
> > function calls.
> This prequ
On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 12:33:58AM +0100, Cyprien LAPLACE wrote:
> /* b.c */
>
> int main()
> {
> register long foo = 0;
"signed long". Signed integer values have no overflow behaviour in C.
Use "unsigned long" if you want that.
> do {
>asm volatile("nop"::"r"(foo));
> } while(++foo);
Ca
On Sat, Apr 05, 2008 at 08:04:15PM +0300, Riku Voipio wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 08:30:54PM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> > Sigh, could we avoid the same discussion over and over, people are not
> > supposed (we never asked it in the past, and I see no valid reason to do
> > so) to update
On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 09:57:34PM +0200, Alexis Huxley wrote:
> gcc-4.2 gets installed with the current 'testing' by default, but it is
> not the compiler used to compile the latest 2.6 series kernel package.
The kernel helper package explicitely depends against _and_ uses
gcc-4.1, this is not co
On Sun, May 25, 2008 at 12:17:22AM +1000, Steffen Joeris wrote:
> gcc 4.2.0 through 4.3.0 in GNU Compiler Collection, when casts are not
> used, considers the sum of a pointer and an int to be greater than or
> equal to the pointer, which might remove length testing code that was
> intended as a pr
On Fri, Jun 06, 2008 at 02:15:38PM +0200, Wojciech Muła wrote:
> Consider this simple program:
This is not simple. Inline assembler could never be simple.
> " xorl %%ebx, %%ebx \n"
Don't use explicit register names but placeholder.
> " movzbl (%%eax
On Sun, Jun 15, 2008 at 04:13:26PM +0200, Peter Lebbing wrote:
> This bug report is actually a duplicate of bug #141015, which was filed
> against gcc-3.0. The bug was never fixed because it was deemed unimportant:
> when the bug reporter used a different combination of settings, he no longer
> got
On Wed, Jul 02, 2008 at 02:05:31PM +0200, Peter T. Breuer wrote:
> > Bug in the Linux kernel. They don't provide libgcc.
> That doesn't convince me (and I am a compiler writer and a linux kernel
> author :-).
I also.
> The compiler changed in a point increment to emit code
> which no
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 01:56:49AM +0200, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> IMHO this problem is nasty: if the user does not check the return code
> but sanitizes the buffer before using it, then this bug leads to
> incorrect program behaviour ("empty" error messages) without triggering
> any compiler warning.
On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 02:57:58PM +0200, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> > Please explain. In C++ there is no implicit conversion between int and
> > char *.
> Exactly. So if you check the return value then the compiler will fail
> (like in the test case above) and you are lucky to notice the problem.
So i
On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 11:32:28PM -0700, Nick Lewycky wrote:
> In C99, _Bool is required to map to one of the unsigned types (6.2.5/6).
Please quote the standard. I read something different there.
> However, GCC rejects the following (admittedly unethical) snippet:
> struct S7 {
> _Bool D
On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 11:14:10PM -0700, Nick Lewycky wrote:
> This testcase produces different output depending on whether -O1 or -O2 is
> specified.
The testcase is wrong. Please produce a _minimal_ variant, it even shows
the same behaviour without bitfields.
Please explain what exactly the fo
On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 08:04:34PM +0300, Jamil Djadala wrote:
> The following code can't be compiled, workaround is to use "this" pointer:
No bug. This are the template name lookup rules.
Bastian
--
Immortality consists largely of boredom.
-- Zefrem Cochrane, "Metamorphosis", s
On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 03:55:16AM +0200, Marc Lehmann wrote:
> when trying to compile the following file:
>#include
| $ cat test.cpp
| #include
| $ g++-4.3 -o test.o -c test.cpp -Wall -W
| $
Please provide a complete example.
Bastian
--
You! What PLANET is this!
-- Mc
On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 11:44:55PM +0200, Marc Lehmann wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 10:49:58PM +0200, Bastian Blank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > > when trying to compile the following file:
> > >#include
> >
> > | $ cat test.cpp
> > |
On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 03:34:53PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Essentially, a piece of Ada code calls a foreign C function with
> a callback as an argument. The callback is an Ada procedure which
> raises an exception. The original Ada caller catches the exception
> and execution continues fr
Package: cloog-ppl
Version: 0.15~git20080915-1
Severity: serious
There was an error while trying to autobuild your package:
> Automatic build of cloog-ppl_0.15~git20080915-1 on lxdebian.bfinv.de by
> sbuild/s390 98
[...]
> make[2]: Entering directory `/build/buildd/cloog-ppl-0.15~git20080915/doc
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 02:55:12PM +0100, Matthew Vernon wrote:
> C99 requires that code that tests floating-point state flags (or frobs
> other bits of the floating-point environment) calls #pragma STDC
> FENV_ACCESS ON:
gcc does not stat full C99 compilance.
> It's obviously buggy to emit a w
On Tue, Nov 04, 2008 at 02:09:08PM +0100, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > Package: gcc-4.3
> > Version: 4.3.2-1
> > Severity: wishlist
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > I tried building a cross toolchain for powerpc following the steps on
> > http://www.emdebian.org/tools/crossdev.html (i
On Tue, Nov 04, 2008 at 01:06:43PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> I tried building a cross toolchain for powerpc following the steps on
> http://www.emdebian.org/tools/crossdev.html (i.e. installing
> binutils-$arch-linux-gnu and libc6-dev-$arch-cross, then export
> GCC_TARGET=arch, debian/rules
On Tue, Nov 04, 2008 at 01:06:43PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> I tried building a cross toolchain for powerpc following the steps on
> http://www.emdebian.org/tools/crossdev.html (i.e. installing
> binutils-$arch-linux-gnu and libc6-dev-$arch-cross, then export
> GCC_TARGET=arch, debian/rules
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 03:34:59AM +0200, Michael Tautschnig wrote:
> When rebuilding diagnostics, it failed on s390 during the selftests [0]. The
> failing piece of code is attached.
This includes too many preprocessor magic. Please provide an example
without.
I was not even able to link libdiag
On Sun, Mar 01, 2009 at 10:40:40AM +0200, Kalle Olavi Niemitalo wrote:
> results in a warning:
> hoh.c: In function ‘main’:
> hoh.c:4: warning: comparison with string literal results in unspecified
> behavior
> The warning claims the behaviour is unspecified.
The warning is correct. The behaviour
Package: ppl
Version: 0.10-4
Severity: serious
The build of ppl needs 7 CPU-hours on a fast machine, including a long
documentation run. Also I saw at least 4 runs of the same test set.
> Automatic build of ppl_0.10-4 on lxdebian.bfinv.de by sbuild/s390 98
[...]
> Build needed 06:58:18, 1434876k
tags 524064 moreinfo
thanks
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 05:17:59PM +0100, Alastair McKinstry wrote:
> Relevant code:
> 196 ostringstream out;
> 197 tm convert = base_;
> 198 locale loc("");
> 199 out.imbue(loc);
> 200 const std::time_
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 09:19:49PM +0100, Alastair McKinstry wrote:
> Ok. I'm not a C++ programmer, and would appreciate an explanation. The
> standalone code is:
I would try using "#include ".
Bastian
--
Lots of people drink from the wrong bottle sometimes.
-- Edith Keeler, "
On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 11:57:22AM +, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote:
> Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> > fixed 524064 4.3.3-7
> Bug#524064: Regression: compile failure on valid C++ code
> Bug marked as fixed in version 4.3.3-7.
This is not the right way to handle invalid
Hi folks
I would like to raise the minimum CPU requirement for the s390 port to
z900. At the same time the 31-bit kernel (-s390) will be retired because
it lacks upstream maintenance.
This means that Debian will get unusable on the old 31-bit-only CPUs (G5
and G6), as used for example in the Mult
On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 10:58:46AM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> When using -fvisibility=hidden to define the global visibility to hidden,
> declaring a function with the global visibility, then redeclaring it
> with visibility default results in the symbol being exported.
Pleas rered the documentat
Source: gcc-snapshot
Version: 20090923-1
Severity: serious
There was an error while trying to autobuild your package:
> sbuild (Debian sbuild) 0.58.2 (31 Jul 2009) on debian-31.osdl.marist.edu
[...]
> /bin/sh ../libtool --tag CXX --mode=compile
> /build/buildd-gcc-snapshot_20090923-1-s390-SPkq
On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 11:55:25AM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> I would like to propose enabling[1] the GCC hardening patches that Ubuntu
> uses[2].
How do they work? Do they also change the free-standing compiler or only
the hosted one? There is a lot of software, which (I would say) missuse
the hos
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 09:41:59PM +0100, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
> Ever thought about integrating PaX [0] per default in Debian?
What features does the grsecurity patch provide currently? I know that
several of the mentioned PaX features are supported in vanilla kernel in
the meantime:
-
On Tue, Dec 01, 2009 at 03:26:29PM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote:
> Is there a bug in maildrop-2.2.0/maildrop/recipenode.C that causes it to
> get compiled differently with -O1, or is the problem with the compiler?
Are you able to produce a minimal testcase?
Bastian
--
Our way is peace.
On Sat, Dec 26, 2009 at 01:29:48AM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 11:51:35PM +0100, Bastian Blank wrote:
> > What would be a step forward:
> > - Make any code PIC, including binaries (PIE) and static libs.
> static libs would need to be PIE, not PIC.
The d
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 10:47:55PM +0200, Riku Voipio wrote:
> There is a major problem with gcc 4.4 and armel - the ABI of va_list
> changed (for c++ libraries). We need to decide one of the following:
What exactly have changed? The ABI (as said in the sentence before) or
the mangling.
> 1) li
Package: gcc-snapshot
Version: 20060323-1
Severity: important
There was an error while trying to autobuild your package:
> Automatic build of gcc-snapshot_20060323-1 on debian-31 by sbuild/s390 85
[...]
> /build/buildd/gcc-snapshot-20060323/build/gcc/gcj
> -B/build/buildd/gcc-snapshot-20060323/b
On Fri, Apr 07, 2006 at 10:44:26AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> - configure gcc with --disable-tls (on which architectures would that
> be (not) needed?)
amd64, maybe hppa. Anything with supports tla in sarge and don't ship
with 2.4 kernels.
> - build a libstdc++6 with a gcc, configured with
On Mon, Jun 12, 2006 at 06:39:27PM +0200, Erik Meusel wrote:
> Alright, but why does this work differently using different versions of gcc
> or
> different optimization levels?
That is the meaning of undefined behaviour. You can't predict anything.
Therefor gcc is free to remove tests if it does
On Mon, Jun 12, 2006 at 03:01:39PM +0200, Erik Meusel wrote:
> Use this little example to see what's happening:
>
> #include
>
> int main(void) {
> char c = '\0';
>
> do {
> printf("%d\n", c);
%d is for int, not char: UB.
> c++;
char is neither
On Sat, Jul 01, 2006 at 12:41:54AM +0200, Vincent Fourmond wrote:
> There definitely *is* a problem in the last iteration. I wonder if it is a
> compiler bug or a
> processor bug -- I can't speak assembler anymore.
This rather looks like UB or such.
> int main()
> {
> unsigned long iters;
>
Package: gcc-4.1
Version: 4.1.1-6
Severity: serious
There was an error while trying to autobuild your package:
> Automatic build of gcc-4.1_4.1.1-6 on debian-31 by sbuild/s390 85
[...]
> ** Using build dependencies supplied by package:
> Build-Depends: dpkg-dev (>= 1.13.9), libc6.1-dev (>= 2.3.6-
severity 376342 serious
thanks
On Sun, Jul 02, 2006 at 11:37:04AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> has an alternative to gnat-4.1.
Which is not used on buildds.
Bastian
--
The face of war has never changed. Surely it is more logical to heal
than to kill.
-- Surak of Vulcan, "The
On Wed, Jul 05, 2006 at 06:20:27PM +0200, NyOS wrote:
> printf("a:%d t[0]:%d *p:%d\n",a,t[0],*p);
> a+=(a=2)+(a=3);
Modifies one value multiple times without sequence point: Undefined
behaviour.
> t[0]+=(t[0]=2)+(t[0]=3);
Modifies one value multiple times without sequence point: Undefined
Package: gcc-snapshot
Version: 20060714-1
Severity: serious
There was an error while trying to autobuild your package:
> Automatic build of gcc-snapshot_20060714-1 on debian-31 by sbuild/s390 85
[...]
> E: Package gnat-4.0 has no installation candidate
> Package gnat-4.0 is not available, but is
On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 09:55:09AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Will gcc-4.0 be dropped as a build dependency for etch, or be kept?
The alpha maintainer said, gcc-4.1 is not capable to build the linux
kernel, the same applies to m68k. Any other architecture can use it.
hppa just did not switch o
On Sun, Sep 17, 2006 at 06:27:26PM -0400, Yaroslav Halchenko wrote:
> After recent upgrade, mcc (Matlab compiler fails to compile) with next
> error messages:
This update changed the default compiler from gcc-3.3 to gcc-4.0.
> r14sp3 release of matlab:
> -> gcc -O -pthread -o test test_main.o t
Package: gij-4.1
Version: 4.1.1-15
Severity: grave
| Setting up gij-4.1 (4.1.1-15) ...
| gcj-dbtool-4.1: error while loading shared libraries: libgcj.so.70: cannot
open shared object file: No such file or directory
| dpkg: error processing gij-4.1 (--configure):
| subprocess post-installation sc
unmerge 390928
severity 390928 grave
thanks
On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 10:14:25PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> even you, please recheck the BTS. kthxbye.
Wrong bug. libgcj7-0 was not sheduled for installation.
Bastian
--
Only a fool fights in a burning house.
-- Kank the Klingon
On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 05:33:38PM +0300, Fokin Evgeny wrote:
> I make simple code for demonstration this compile error. Look attached
> files.
Can you please explain why this example is correct?
> compileError.hxx:11:62: instantiated from here
> /usr/include/c++/4.5/bits/stl_pair.h:77:11: erro
On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 05:20:09PM +0400, Fokin Evgeny wrote:
> The first: It is works with g++-4.4 :-)
No argument. The compiler may accept more than the standard specifies.
But g++ 4.5 got more strict in what it accepts.
> When the member function fully defines in the class body it makes the
>
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 09:17:22PM +0530, Mahesh T. Pai wrote:
> paivakil@nandini:~$ ls /usr/lib64/libstdc++.so.6* -l
> lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 19 Jun 16 20:46 /usr/lib64/libstdc++.so.6 ->
> libstdc++.so.6.0.13
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 1043976 Jun 25 2010 /usr/lib64/libstdc++.so.6.0.13
Whe
On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 11:14:34PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> #include
> inline void*
> pari_realloc(void *pointer, size_t size)
> {
> char *tmp;
> if (!pointer)
> tmp = (char *) malloc(size);
> else
> tmp = (char *) realloc(pointer,size);
Please fix the obvious problems:
- Neve
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 04:47:20PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Ben Hutchings writes ("Increasing minimum 'i386' processor"):
> > The 486-class processors that would no longer be supported are:
> > 1. All x86 processors with names including '486'
> I'm still running the machine below, and it would b
On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 07:44:11PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> dh_shlibdeps doesn't work for 64bit packages, so you have to hand-code
> all the dependencies ...
It does if running on a kernel which is able to execute the binaries.
> maybe dpkg-shlibdeps could use objdump -x instead of ldd to d
On Tue, Aug 30, 2005 at 02:45:41PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> By any chance, can you provide a reference to the C spec that shows
> gcc's current behavior is valid? Given that traceroute is among the
> programs that breaks under gcc-4.0, it seems to me that the assumption
> that it's safe to u
On Tue, Aug 30, 2005 at 12:34:01AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> When passing pointers to 4-byte types to memcpy(), gcc-4.0 generates
> wrong code which assumes that these pointers are aligned at 4-byte
> boundaries for purposes of optimization, ignoring the implicit cast to
> (char *) in the prot
Package: gcc-snapshot
Version: 20050904-1
Severity: serious
There was an error while trying to autobuild your package:
> Automatic build of gcc-snapshot_20050904-1 on debian01 by sbuild/s390 42
[...]
> /build/buildd/gcc-snapshot-20050904/build/./gcc/xgcc -shared-libgcc
> -B/build/buildd/gcc-snap
Package: gcc-4.0
Version: 4.0.2-2
Severity: wishlist
Please provide a gcc-source-4.0 package which contains the current
sources to build for example cross compilers from them.
Bastian
--
Killing is stupid; useless!
-- McCoy, "A Private Little War", stardate 4211.8
diff -urN gcc-
Package: java-gcj-compat
Version: 1.0.41-2
Severity: serious
There was an error while trying to autobuild your package:
> Automatic build of java-gcj-compat_1.0.41-2 on debian01 by sbuild/s390 69
[...]
> /usr/bin/make
> make[1]: Entering directory `/build/buildd/java-gcj-compat-1.0.41'
> gcj-4.0
On Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 10:57:13PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> I've reduce the code in question to:
> int x;
> static void ** STACK;
Two uninitialized variables.
> static void get_block () {
> while (1)
> {
> STACK[0] = (void *)(&x+(1L<<48));
- Dereference of an uninitialized variable ak
Package: gcc-4.1-source
Version: 4.1.1-20
Severity: important
| rm -f
/home/waldi/debian/tmp/toolchain/build/gcc-4.1-i486-linux-gnu/src/gcc/doc/*.1
| rm -f
/home/waldi/debian/tmp/toolchain/build/gcc-4.1-i486-linux-gnu/src/gcc/doc/*.info
| for i in gcc/doc/bugreport.texi gcc/doc/cfg.texi gcc/doc/
Package: gcj-4.1
Version: 4.1.2-4
Severity: serious
There was an error while trying to autobuild your package:
> Automatic build of gcj-4.1_4.1.2-4 on lxdebian.bfinv.de by sbuild/s390 98
[...]
> The following packages have unmet dependencies:
> ecj-bootstrap: Depends: ecj but it is not going to
Package: gcc-4.1
Version: 4.1.2-7
Severity: important
cc1 segfaults if /proc is not mounted and it have to compile large files
(the preprocessed source is over 800KiB, the source file 250KiB).
The failing commandline is
| gcc-4.1 -m64 -Os -Wall -fno-strict-aliasing -o test1 -c tmp/cczsgTYO.i
I
Package: gcc-snapshot
Version: 20070604-1
Severity: serious
There was an error while trying to autobuild your package:
> Automatic build of gcc-snapshot_20070604-1 on lxdebian.bfinv.de by
> sbuild/s390 98
[...]
> if [ -f stamps/02-patch-stamp-libjava-biarch-alsa ]; then \
> echo "libjava
Package: gcc-snapshot
Version: 20070630-1
Severity: serious
There was an error while trying to autobuild your package:
> Automatic build of gcc-snapshot_20070630-1 on lxdebian.bfinv.de by
> sbuild/s390 98
[...]
> /bin/bash: line 14: gcj-4.1: command not found
> make[1]: *** [stamps/05-build-stam
Package: gnat-4.2
Version: 4.2-20070627-1
Severity: serious
There was an error while trying to autobuild your package:
> Automatic build of gnat-4.2_4.2-20070627-1 on lxdebian.bfinv.de by
> sbuild/s390 98
[...]
> Checking correctness of source dependencies...
> After installing, the following so
Package: gnat-4.2
Version: 4.2-20070712-1
Severity: serious
There was an error while trying to autobuild your package:
> Automatic build of gnat-4.2_4.2-20070712-1 on lxdebian.bfinv.de by
> sbuild/s390 98
[...]
> g-trasym.o convert_addresses.o \
> -Wl,-soname,libgnat-
On Fri, Jul 20, 2007 at 11:33:01AM +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
> http://bugs.debian.org/433629
> Yes, it's pretty odd, but recompiling the whole kernel tree with gcc 4.2
> causes my usbhid to totally not work.
The Debian linux kernels explicitely uses gcc-4.1.
Bastian
--
It is undignified for a
On Fri, Jul 20, 2007 at 11:51:47AM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> I have another objection. I'd like all mozilla security updates to be built
> before gcc 4.2 becomes the default, because they don't build correctly yet,
> and I am (still) waiting for an upstream comment on how to fix it.
The change i
On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 04:16:13PM +0200, Javier Cabezas Rodríguez wrote:
> void do_pin_processes(int pids[], int n, char pin)
> {
> int i;
> for (i = 0; i < n; i++) {
> printf("%d\n", i);
> do_pin_process(pids[i], pin);
> }
> }
>
> When I compile the attached program with the follow
Package: gdc-4.1
Version: 0.23-4.1.2-15
Severity: serious
There was an error while trying to autobuild your package:
> Automatic build of gdc-4.1_0.23-4.1.2-15 on lxdebian.bfinv.de by sbuild/s390
> 98
[...]
> /build/buildd/gdc-4.1-0.23-4.1.2/build/./gcc/xgcc -shared-libgcc
> -B/build/buil
severity 439573 serious
thanks
On Sat, Aug 25, 2007 at 08:38:37PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Bastian Blank writes:
> > Package: gdc-4.1
> > Version: 0.23-4.1.2-15
> > Severity: serious
>
> nice try; you should know better.
No buildd is able to build it. amd64 and
severity 439573 serious
thanks
On Sun, Aug 26, 2007 at 09:20:12PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> buy some glasses, kthxbye.
http://buildd.debian.org/~jeroen/status/package.php?p=gdc-4.1&suite=unstable
4 errors with exactly the same unusable error message.
Bastian
--
Vulcans worship peace abov
On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 05:09:36PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Please recheck with 4.2 and 4.3/snapshot.
Works with 4.2.
Bastian
--
Without freedom of choice there is no creativity.
-- Kirk, "The return of the Archons", stardate 3157.4
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL P
Control: reassign -1 libsdl2-dev
Control: severity -1 serious
Control: retitle -1 libsdl2-dev - SDL.h includes altivec.h, breaks c++ code
On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 08:54:52AM +0100, Johannes Schauer wrote:
> The issue seems to only appear when compiling with c++. It does not
> happen when compiling
1 - 100 of 124 matches
Mail list logo
