tags 22 + upstream
tags 22 + fixed-upstream
retitle 22 [fixed in 3.4] libstdc++: largefile support (LFS) missing
thanks
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> tags 22 + upstream
Bug#22: libstdc++5: largefile support (LFS) missing
There were no tags set.
Tags added: upstream
> tags 22 + fixed-upstream
Bug#22: libstdc++5: largefile support (LFS) missing
Tags were: upstream
Tags added: fixed-ups
Daniel Bayer writes:
> Package: gcc-3.3
> Version: 1:3.3.2-1
> Severity: normal
>
> Hello,
>
> I get a SIGBUS when I try to profile something:
> | [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~ $ cat a.c
> | void a() { }
> | int main() { a(); }
> | [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~ $ gcc-3.3 -m32 -p -pg -o a a.c
> | [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~
Your message dated Sun, 16 Nov 2003 13:56:34 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#216849: [sparc] Re: Bug#216849: relocation overflow 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
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> tags 187091 + fixed-upstream
Bug#187091: [PR 11942] restrict keyword broken in C99 mode
Tags were: upstream
Tags added: fixed-upstream
> retitle 187091 [fixed in 3.4] [PR 11942] restrict keyword broken in C99 mode
Bug#187091: [PR 11942] restrict keywor
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> tags 177303 + fixed-upstream
Bug#177303: [PR 11943] Accepts invalid declaration "int x[2, 3];" in C99 mode
Tags were: upstream
Tags added: fixed-upstream
> retitle 177303 [fixed in 3.4] [PR 11943] Accepts invalid declaration "int
> x[2, 3];" in C99 mo
Your message dated Sun, 16 Nov 2003 14:26:34 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#216473: gcc-3.3: Transient compile error after long build
(mozilla-thunderbird)
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> tags 215445 + upstream
Bug#215445: gcj-3.3: no compila un archivo
There were no tags set.
Tags added: upstream
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debia
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2003-11-16
15:19 ---
I can confirm this.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |N
Accepted:
gcc-snapshot_20031116-1.diff.gz
to pool/main/g/gcc-snapshot/gcc-snapshot_20031116-1.diff.gz
gcc-snapshot_20031116-1.dsc
to pool/main/g/gcc-snapshot/gcc-snapshot_20031116-1.dsc
gcc-snapshot_20031116-1_i386.deb
to pool/main/g/gcc-snapshot/gcc-snapshot_20031116-1_i386.deb
gcc-snapshot
Your message dated Sun, 16 Nov 2003 11:17:31 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#210328: fixed in gcc-snapshot 20031116-1
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 c
--- Additional Comments From paolo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2003-11-16 17:29
---
"There is currently no way" seems to me way (punt intended :) too strong!
What about:
-nostdinc++ -I/usr/include/c++/3.3.2 -I/usr/include/c++/3.3.2/i686-pc-linux-gnu
??
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/sh
--- Additional Comments From doko at cs dot tu-berlin dot de 2003-11-16
18:37 ---
Subject: Re: no way to exclude backward C++ headers from include path
paolo at gcc dot gnu dot org writes:
>
> --- Additional Comments From paolo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2003-11-16
> 17:29 ---
>
--
What|Removed |Added
Component|c++ |driver
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13071
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
Your message dated Sun, 16 Nov 2003 20:40:51 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line unreproducible with current g++ version
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
--
What|Removed |Added
CC||debian-gcc at lists dot
||debian dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bug
[ see http://bugs.debian.org/217966 ]
Camm,
we won't get any further with the granularity of this report. Please
could you investigate using gcc-3.4 (gcc-snapshot) and compare the
test results?
Thanks, Matthias
Your message dated Sun, 16 Nov 2003 21:13:43 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#216225: Bug in g++ 3.3.2
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
Your message dated Sun, 16 Nov 2003 21:15:45 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line gcc-default - build is incorrect with nmu versioning
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 c
Your message dated Sun, 16 Nov 2003 21:11:40 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Not a bug: Cannot subtract from streampos
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 n
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> tags 187564 + upstream
Bug#187564: [PR 10692] [m68k] wrong code compiling perl_5.8.0-17
There were no tags set.
Tags added: upstream
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Debian bug tracking system administrator
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> tags 217966 + upstream
Bug#217966: lapack: Fails selftests and builds useless libs (it claims)
There were no tags set.
Tags added: upstream
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Debian bug tracking system admini
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> reassign 210598 gcc-3.3
Bug#210598: libc6.1: Operations on subnormal floating-point numbers generate a
floating point exception
Bug reassigned from package `gcc-3.2' to `gcc-3.3'.
> merge 210598 212912
Bug#210598: libc6.1: Operations on subnormal floa
Your message dated Sun, 16 Nov 2003 22:40:15 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#216616: gcc-3.2: floating point problem with athlon
thunderbird
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If t
Please could you recheck with the current g++ (g++-3.3) from the
testing/unstable distribution?
Your message dated Sun, 16 Nov 2003 22:58:02 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line fixed with current versions from unstable
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 n
Your message dated Sun, 16 Nov 2003 23:15:12 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line fixed in gcc-3.x
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 responsibility to
compilation failed to produce executable
=== g++ Summary ===
# of expected passes9116
# of unexpected failures12
# of unexpected successes 3
# of expected failures 59
# of unsupported tests 29
/build/packages/gcc/snap/gcc-snapshot-20031116/build
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> reassign 153478 gcc-doc
Bug#153478: Document refered to in info should be distrubuted with package.
Bug reassigned from package `gcc-2.95-doc' to `gcc-doc'.
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Debian bug track
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2003-11-16
23:09 ---
Some at debian messed up because this is exact dup of bug 12567 and even the
same debain bug
number, 195468.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 12567 ***
--
What|Removed
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2003-11-16
23:09 ---
*** Bug 13080 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12567
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You reported the bug, or are watch
Your message dated Mon, 17 Nov 2003 00:10:07 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line closing report, no feedback provided
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 yo
--- Additional Comments From doko at cs dot tu-berlin dot de 2003-11-16
23:57 ---
Subject: Re: 3.3 / 3.4
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org writes:
>
> --- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2003-11-16
> 23:09 ---
> Some at debian messed up because this is e
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2003-11-17
00:52 ---
The problem is somehow related to having this line:
template T foo(T);
Confirmed on the mainline and 3.3.2.
--
What|Removed |Added
--
34 matches
Mail list logo
