This may be a compiler bug. On ia64 the package builds using gcc-3.4
from experimental. I didn't try to build 5.8.3 to see if this was
triggered by the new perl version.
Maybe it's an alternative to build miniperl with gcc-2.96 on ia64 and
gcc-2.95 on arm and m68k?
current 3.4.3 CVS has a change to add libunwind support to libgcc.
* config.gcc (ia64*-*-linux*): Always add t-libunwind to
tmake_file. Add t-libunwind-elf and ia64/t-glibc-libunwind to
tmake_file if --with-system-libunwind isn't used.
I want to reassure, that this ch
H. J. Lu writes:
> That is a packaging issue. You should create libgcc1_3.4.3-1_ia64.deb
> which depends on libunwind7.so. libunwind7.so can come from either
> Mosberger's libunwind or gcc.
yes, it's a packaging issue. we currently cannot introduce new
packages to the base system for sarge.
Ian Wienand writes:
> On Mon, Nov 22, 2004 at 05:30:38PM -0800, David Mosberger wrote:
> > That would make sense. libstdc++5 calls _Unwind_Resume() which
> > is/should be implemented by libunwind.so.7. With older versions of
> > GCC, it was implemented as part of libgcc_eh.a/libgcc_s.so.
>
> Act
David Mosberger writes:
> >>>>> On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 09:27:52 +0100, Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>>>> said:
>
> Matthias> Is the patch in #278836 a prerequisite for the above
> Matthias> changes, or can it be done without it?
David Mosberger writes:
> >>>>> On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 00:26:01 +0100, Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>>>> said:
>
> Matthias> From my point of view we can get around with it by
> Matthias> including the libunwind shared library in
Matthieu Delahaye writes:
> On Wed, 2004-11-24 at 17:36, Ian Wienand wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 24, 2004 at 12:46:12AM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > > ok, Ian, if it's ok with you, I'll prepare a libunwind upload, which
> > > plays well with a libgcc1 pa
cript, on
advice of Jeff Bailey. Closes: #284563.
-- Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Fri, 10 Dec 2004 11:05:00 -0800
diff -u glibc-2.3.2.ds1/debian/control.in/main
glibc-2.3.2.ds1/debian/control.in/main
--- glibc-2.3.2.ds1/debian/control.in/main
+++ glibc-2.3.2.ds1/debian/co
David Mosberger writes:
> I wanted to try this but found that the gcc-3.3 has a libgcc1 package
> for hppa only. Is this intentional? I thought a new libgcc1 package
> for ia64 was needed so we pick up the libunwind built from the
> libunwind sources.
please get the libgcc1 package from the unst
David Mosberger writes:
> >>>>> On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 20:47:41 +0100, Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>>>> said:
> Matthias> It's currently built by the gcc-3.4 sources and includes
> Matthias> the libunwind.so.7 shared library
according to the changelog, nothing really has changed ... CCing to
the ia64 list.
Duraid Madina writes:
> Hi Mathias, Gerhard and others,
>
> I want to report a nasty performance regression in 3.3.5-12. Moving
> from:
>
> gcc version 3.3.5 (Debian 1:3.3.5-11)
>
> to:
>
> gcc version 3.3
Package: ftp.debian.org
please remove gcc-2.96 from unstable, isn't used anymore as a build
dependency.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
gcc-4.1 uses the backport of PR 26208 from the trunk.
--- Begin Message ---
Package: gcc-4.1
Version: 4.1.1-14
Severity: serious
The latest version of the glibc failed to build on ia64 with the
following error:
gcc-4.1 -nostdlib -nostartfiles -static -o
/build/buildd/glibc-2.3.6.ds1/build-tree
While having built and uploaded things correctly for experimental, I
didn't do the same for unstable, which now needs some manual
intervention building gnat-4.1 and gcj-4.1.
gnat-4.1 (mips mipsel s390 sparc):
- work in a sid chroot
- install gnat-4.1-base libgnat-4.1 libgnatprj4.1 libgnatvsn4.1
The plans for the GCC 4.2 transition were described in
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2007/06/msg8.html
Does any port still need to stick with GCC 4.1 for a while? Feedback
from hppa, mips*, s390, powerpc, amd64, i386 porters doesn't show
objections against the transition.
Besides m68k hopelessly being behind we do have serious problems on
alpha, arm and hppa.
- on arm, the bytecode compiler (ecj) doesn't produce correct code.
there is currently a workaround to build the package on arm using
byte-compiled code built on another architecture. Aurelian has
m
Hi,
openjdk-6 in unstable is updated to the 6b14 code drop, built from a recent
IcedTea snapshot. There are a few regressions in the ports which don't use the
hotspot VM, but the Zero VM. Help from porters would be appreciated.
There are two new binary packages offering additional JVMs:
- openj
Besides the open license issue, are there any objections from port maintainers
to make GCC-4.4 the default?
As a first step that would be a change of the default for C, C++, ObjC, ObjC++
and Fortran.
I'm not sure about Java, which show some regressions compared to 4.3. Otoh it's
not amymore
For wheezy I'm planning to change the linking behaviour for DSOs (turning on
--as-needed and --no-copy-dt-needed-entries. The rationale is summarized in
http://wiki.debian.org/ToolChain/DSOLinking. I would like to know about issues
with these changes on some of the Debian ports, and if we need t
On 15.11.2010 07:16, Roland McGrath wrote:
airlied_, does Fedora use --as-needed by default? Fedora 14 too?
mattst88: yes
The naming of the options makes people easily confused.
--no-add-needed is the only option Fedora's gcc passes.
yes, OpenSuse is using --as-needed, but not --no-add-ne
On 14.11.2010 16:06, Roger Leigh wrote:
While I understand the rationale for --no-copy-dt-needed-entries for
preventing encapsulation violations via indirect linking, I don't agree
with the use of --as-needed *at all*. If a library has been explicitly
linked in, it shouldn't be removed. This is
On 14.11.2010 13:19, Julien Cristau wrote:
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 15:43:57 +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
For wheezy I'm planning to change the linking behaviour for DSOs
(turning on --as-needed and --no-copy-dt-needed-entries. The
rationale is summarized in
http://wiki.debian.org/Tool
On 16.11.2010 01:24, Roger Leigh wrote:
On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 11:02:57PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
On 14.11.2010 16:06, Roger Leigh wrote:
While I understand the rationale for --no-copy-dt-needed-entries for
preventing encapsulation violations via indirect linking, I don't agree
wit
On 16.11.2010 10:42, Roger Leigh wrote:
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 01:14:09AM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
On 14.11.2010 13:19, Julien Cristau wrote:
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 15:43:57 +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
For wheezy I'm planning to change the linking behaviour for DSOs
(turning on
I'll make gcc-4.5 the default for (at least some) architectures within the next
two weeks before more transitions start. GCC-4.5 is already used as the default
compiler for almost any other distribution, so there shouldn't be many surprises
on at least the common architectures. About 50% of the b
On 02.03.2011 07:36, Konstantinos Margaritis wrote:
> On 2 March 2011 03:34, Matthias Klose wrote:
>
>> I'll make gcc-4.5 the default for (at least some) architectures within the
>> next
>> two weeks before more transitions start. GCC-4.5 is already used as the
>
On 02.03.2011 17:54, Martin Guy wrote:
> On 2 March 2011 02:34, Matthias Klose wrote:
>> armel (although optimized for a different processor)
>
> Hi
> For which processor (/architecture) is it optimized, and do you mean
> optimized-for, or only-runs-on?
> I ask
On 04/17/2011 09:33 PM, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
On Wed, 2011-03-02 at 02:34 +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
I'll make gcc-4.5 the default for (at least some) architectures within the next
two weeks before more transitions start. GCC-4.5 is already used as the default
compiler for almost any
On 04/26/2011 05:31 PM, Konstantinos Margaritis wrote:
On 26 April 2011 18:03, Matthias Klose wrote:
I'll make GCC 4.6 the default after the release of
GCC 4.5.3, expected later this week, at least on amd64, armel, i386 and
powerpc.
Could you include armhf in the list as well?
yes, f
On 04/26/2011 09:28 PM, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 08:51:04PM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 05:03:01PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
I'll make GCC 4.6 the
default after the release of GCC 4.5.3, expected later this week, at
least on amd64, armel, i38
See gcc-4.6 4.6.1-10 and PR target/50350
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ia64-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4e6cd425.3050...@ubuntu.com
On 11/03/2011 03:41 PM, Jakub Wilk wrote:
> Package: gcc-4.6
> Version: 4.6.2-3
>
> (sid)jwilk@merulo:~$ g++-4.6 -O3 -c V9990.ii
> src/video/v9990/V9990.cc: In member function ‘void
> openmsx::V9990::setHorizontalTiming()’:
> src/video/v9990/V9990.cc:734:1: internal compiler error: Segmentation fa
Please have a look at the gcc-4.7 package in experimental, update patches (hurd,
kfreebsd, ARM is fixed in svn), and investigate the build failures (currently
ia64, but more will appear).
Matthias
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ia64-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe"
GCC-4.7 packages are now available in testing and unstable; thanks to Lucas'
test rebuild, bug reports are now filed for these ~330 packages which fail to
build with the new version [1]. Hints how to address the vast majority of these
issues can be found at [2].
I'm planning to work on these
A request to recheck for ia64 build failures ([1]) wasn't answered, same with a
question wether to default GCC to 4.7 on this architecture ([2]).
I am not aware of anybody within the Debian GCC Maintainers wanting to address
the IA64 specific issues. Please step up, if you want to help with IA64
On 02.05.2012 18:07, Patrick Baggett wrote:
> Matthias,
>
> I wouldn't mind helping a bit, as I'd like to see GCC 4.7 be the default on
> ia64. I'm good at C/C++ programming and can definitely provide upstream
> patches, but I have absolutely no idea what the "debian way" of doing
> things is -- r
GCC 4.7 is now the default for x86 architectures for all frontends except the D
frontends, including KFreeBSD and the Hurd.
There are still some build failures which need to be addressed. Out of the ~350
bugs filed, more than the half are fixed, another quarter has patches available,
and the remai
On 07.05.2012 19:35, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> Matthias Klose dixit:
>
>> GCC 4.7 is now the default for x86 architectures for all frontends except
>> the D
>> frontends, including KFreeBSD and the Hurd.
>
> How are the plans for other architectures?
I don&#x
It's time to change the Java default to java7, and to drop java support on
architectures with non-working java7.
Patches for the transition to Java7 should be available in the BTS, mostly
submitted by James Page. Some may be still lurking around as diffs in Ubuntu
packages, apologies for that. T
Am 09.05.2013 17:42, schrieb Stephan Schreiber:
> Quoting Ansgar Burchardt :
>> I remember talk about potentially dropping the ia64 port after wheezy
>> was released, but don't know about the current status.
>>
> All Wheezy ia64 RC bugs have been fixed (except the problem with the ruby
> package; t
Am 07.05.2013 15:25, schrieb Matthias Klose:
> The decision when to make GCC 4.8 the default for other architectures is
> left to the Debian port maintainers.
[...]
> Information on porting to GCC 4.8 from previous versions of GCC can be
> found in the porting guide http://gcc.gnu
Am 13.06.2013 21:47, schrieb Thorsten Glaser:
> Matthias Klose dixit:
>
>> The Java and D frontends now default to 4.8 on all architectures, the Go
>> frontend stays at 4.7 until 4.8 get the complete Go 1.1 support.
>
> I’d like to have gcj at 4.6 in gcc-defaults for m68k
Am 13.06.2013 16:46, schrieb Steven Chamberlain:
> Hi,
>
> On 13/06/13 13:51, Matthias Klose wrote:
>> GCC 4.8 is now the default on all x86 architectures, and on all ARM
>> architectures (the latter confirmed by the Debian ARM porters). I did not
>> get
>
Am 15.06.2013 03:22, schrieb Stephan Schreiber:
> GCC-4.8 should become the default on ia64 soon; some other changes are
> desirable:
> - The transition of gcc-4.8/libgcc1 to libunwind8.
> - A removal of the libunwind7 dependency of around 4600 packages on ia64 -
> when
> they are updated next ti
Control: severity -1 normal
Control: tags -1 + moreinfo help
filing this report with this severity, for a non-working non-default option
seems to be wrong.
not including the object files (including the shared objects) doesn't help,
these are missing in the upstream report as well.
--
To UNSUBS
Am 29.10.2013 17:48, schrieb Ian Jackson:
> (Mind you, I have my doubts about a process which counts people
> promising to do work - it sets up some rather unfortunate incentives.
> I guess it's easier to judge and more prospective than a process which
> attempts to gauge whether the work has been
Control: tags -1 + moreinfo
Afaics, the situation didn't change. There is nobody committing to work on the
toolchain for these architectures. At least for release architectures the
alternative is to drop the port unless somebody wants to maintain the toolchain
for this port. This is the current
Am 02.12.2013 23:20, schrieb Hiroyuki Yamamoto:
> Hi,
>
> I don't know whether it is appropriate that I remark,
> I have no objection to moving to gcc-4.8 on ppc64, too.
this is not a question about any objections, but about a call to the ppc64
porters if they are able to maintain such a port in
gcc-4.9 is uploaded to experimental, asking the porters to watch for build
failures and corresponding patches. See
https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=gcc-4.9&suite=experimental
These are already fixed in the vcs.
- fixed the gospec.c ftbfs on archs without ld.gold
- fixed the g++ b
Am 16.12.2013 11:34, schrieb Matthias Klose:
> Package: java-common
> Version: 0.50
> Severity: serious
> Tags: jessie, sid
>
> openjdk-7 currently ftbfs on sparc, sparc64, s390, kfreebsd-any. So please
> either remove the default-* packages on these archs, or fall bac
Am 16.01.2014 13:31, schrieb Aníbal Monsalve Salazar:
> For mips/mipsel, I - fix toolchain issues together with other developers at
> ImgTec
It is nice to see such a commitment, however in the past I didn't see any such
contributions.
Matthias
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ia64-requ...@
With gcc-4.9 now available in testing, it is time to prepare for the change of
the default to 4.9, for a subset of architectures or for all (release)
architectures. The defaults for the gdc, gccgo, gcj and gnat frontends already
point to 4.9 and are used on all architectures. Issue #746805 tracks
t;> "just know" what to do, but I haven't the slightest idea of where to begin.
>> I have a box with gcc-4.9, plenty of disk space, and electricity to burn.
>> Where do I start?
>>
>> Patrick
>>
>>
>>> On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 10:25 AM, M
While the Debian Release team has some citation about the quality of the
toolchain on their status page, it is not one of the release criteria documented
by the release team. I'd like to document the status how I do understand it for
some of the toolchains available in Debian.
I appreciate that t
On 10.09.2016 09:59, Paul Gevers wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 10-09-16 00:48, Matthias Klose wrote:
>> - fpc not available on powerpc anymore (may have changed recently)
>
> For whatever it is worth, this was finally fixed this week. It is
> missing on mips*, ppc64el and s390
On 15.09.2016 22:43, Helge Deller wrote:
> Hi Matthias,
>
> On 10.09.2016 00:48, Matthias Klose wrote:
>> While the Debian Release team has some citation about the quality of the
>> toolchain on their status page, it is not one of the release criteria
>> documented
&
On 20.09.2016 23:46, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> On 09/20/2016 11:16 PM, Niels Thykier wrote:
>>- powerpc: No porter (RM blocker)
>
> I'd be happy to pick up powerpc to keep it for Stretch. I'm already
> maintaining powerpcspe which is very similar to powerpc.
No, you are not maintaini
[CCing porters, please also leave feedback in #835148 for non-release
architectures]
On 29.09.2016 21:39, Niels Thykier wrote:
> Hi,
>
> As brought up on the meeting last night, I think we should try to go for
> PIE by default in Stretch on all release architectures!
> * It is a substantial har
Control: tags -1 + pending
fixed in the packaging VCS
On 06.01.2018 14:09, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
>> dh_compress: unknown option or error during option parsing; aborting
>> debian/rules:1354: recipe for target 'binary-native' failed
>> make: *** [binary-native] Error 25
>
> I'm running
On 31.12.2017 15:02, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> Source: gcc-7
> Version: 7.2.0-18
> Severity: normal
> Tags: patch
> User: debian-ia64@lists.debian.org
> Usertags: ia64
>
> Hi!
>
> Like with gcc-6 in #885428, we need to patch src:gcc-7 to use the
> internal libunwind library when cross-bu
According to [1], binutils 2.31 (currently in experimental) will branch in about
a week, and I'll plan to upload the branch version to unstable. Test results
are reported to [2], these look reasonable, except for the various mips targets,
however as seen in the past, it doesn't make a differenc
GCC 8 is available in testing/unstable, and upstream is approaching the first
point release. I am planning to make GCC 8 the default at the end of the week
(gdc and gccgo already point to GCC 8). Most runtime libraries built from GCC
are already used in the version built from GCC 8, so I don't ex
On 07.07.18 17:24, YunQiang Su wrote:
> Niels Thykier 于2018年6月28日周四 上午4:06写道：
>> List of concerns for architectures
>> ==
>>
>> The following is a summary from the current architecture qualification
>> table.
>>
>> * Concern for ppc64el and s390x: we are dependent
On 13.04.19 17:01, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> On 15371 March 1977, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
>
>>> How is the move to debian-ports supposed to happen? I won't have the
>>> time to do anything about it within the 2 weeks.
>
>> The process to inject all packages to debian-ports is to get all the
>> deb, ud
The recent gcc-8 and gcc-9 uploads to unstable are now built using pgo and lto
optimization. Not on all architectures, see debian/rules.defs. On the plus
side the compilers are 7-10% faster, however the build time of the compiler is
much longer, adding 10-20 hours. If people feel that this isn't
GCC 9 was released earlier this year, it is now available in Debian
testing/unstable. I am planning to do the defaults change in mid August, around
the time of the expected first GCC 9 point release (9.2.0).
There are only soname changes for rather unused shared libraries (libgo)
involved, and the
Debian bullseye will be based on a gcc-10 package taken from the gcc-10 upstream
branch, and binutils based on a binutils package taken from the 2.35 branch.
I'm planning to make gcc-10 the default after gcc-10 (10.2.0) is available
(upstream targets mid July). binutils will be updated before mak
On 12/1/20 5:02 AM, YunQiang Su wrote:
> I am sorry for the later response.
>Hi,
>
> I am an active porter for the following architectures and I intend
> to continue this for the lifetime of the Bullseye release (est. end
> of 2024):
>
> For mipsel and mips64el, I
> - test most pac
Link time optimizations are an optimization that helps with a single digit
percent number optimizing both for smaller size, and better speed. These
optimizations are available for some time now in GCC. Link time optimizations
are also at least turned on in other distros like Fedora, OpenSuse (
Yesterday I uploaded new gcc-3.0 packages. Close before the gcc
release I'd like to check the status of the Debian architecutres:
alpha - 010526
arm - 010526, no java
i386- 010609
hppa- 010427, no java, "old" ABI, Matt Taggert working on a new patch
powerpc - 010609, no java (link er
John R. Daily writes:
> I sent this to the debian-ia64 list recently and received no
> input. Given the apparent lack of concern about making such a
> change, I'd like to inquire on this list whether such a change
> would be technically and politically feasible pre-woody.
>
> Matthias, I understan
please could somebody build the graphiviz package on ia64 or install
the build dependencies on a ia64 machine?
Thanks, Matthias
Randolph Chung writes:
> > Is that one available somewhere on an ia64 box, preferably one accessible
> > to John?
>
> gcc-snapshot package, but we cannot use that to build binaries to go into the
> archive (uses different library versions)
maybe if linking with static libraries is an option?
> I
Yann Dirson writes:
> Hi,
>
> The excuses file for cssc tells it's no promoted because it shows a
> dep on gcc-3.1, which I don't feel is normal. I found out that the
> ia64 binary says:
>
> Depends: libc6.1 (>= 2.2.4-4), libgcc1 (>= 1:3.1), libstdc++3 (>= 1:3.0.3-1)
>
> Whereas I had put in th
Please have a look at the following packages, which are not built on
ia64:
python-reportlab ood ia64
built, but not uploaded?
python-utmp ood ia64
built, but not uploaded?
sketch ood ia64 sparc
built, but not uploaded?
Good news first. It becomes more tedious to track the bug-free
packages. Besides the usual serious bugs, the following issues remain:
- wxwindows2.2 is still unbuildable in unstable, not yet removed
from unstable, package maintainer does not respond. Oh fun!
- postgresql: doesn't go to testing
Please could somebody recheck this report and report results on
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Thanks
#144935: please recheck with gcc-3.2 and/or gcc-snapshot and send your
results to the bug report (as requested in May 2002 for the first time).
Thanks, Matthias
tags 169004 + moreinfo
tags 169004 + helpneeded
thanks
- which compiler versions are used?
- does the bug persist with gcc-3.2.2 and/or the current gcc-snapshot?
Herbert Xu writes:
> reassign 169004 gcc
> merge 85468 169004
> quit
>
> On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 04:06:01PM -0700, dann frazier wrote:
just tried on ia64. getting only syntax errors ...
please recheck!
$ gcc-3.2 -c bug-156291.i
In file included from /usr/include/link.h:25,
from ../h/linux.h:12,
from ../h/config.h:1,
from ../h/include.h:37,
from num_log.c:27:
/
Package: libice-dev
Version: 4.3.0-2
Severity: serious
This is from the buildd log for ia64, building lib-gnu-awt-xlib from the
gcc-3.3 package. The static libICE.a is picked up for linking.
It works ok on ia64 with xfree86-4.2-16 and with 4.3 on i386 and hppa.
/bin/sh ./libtool --tag=CXX --mo
the same failure is also seen on alpha, hppa, m68k, sh4.
Package: src:boost1.88
Version: 1.88.0~beta1-1~exp1
Severity: important
X-Debbugs-CC: debian-po...@lists.debian.org
these are seen on different architectures in the configure step on at
least alpha, hppa, m68k, sh4.
[...]
- BOOST_ARCH_WORD_BITS == 0.0.16 : no [8]
- BOOST_ARCH_WORD_BITS
Control: severity -1 important
On 19.04.25 20:58, Jeremy Bícha wrote:
Source: openjdk-20
Version: 20.0.2+9-1
Severity: serious
X-Debbugs-CC: d...@ubuntu.com
Can we remove OpenJDK 20 from Debian now? It is only in Unstable. It
is also not included in any currently supported Ubuntu release.
OpenJ
84 matches
Mail list logo
