[Bug c++/13944] [3.3 Regression] exception in constructor of a class to be thrown is not caught
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-03-03 07:40 --- Subject: Bug 13944 CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc Module name:gcc Branch: gcc-3_3-branch Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-03-03 07:40:31 Modified files: gcc/cp : ChangeLog except.c Log message: PR c++/13944 * except.c (do_free_exception): Remove #if 0 wrapper. (build_throw): Use it if we elide a copy into the exception object. Patches: http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/cp/ChangeLog.diff?cvsroot=gcc&only_with_tag=gcc-3_3-branch&r1=1.3076.2.256&r2=1.3076.2.257 http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/cp/except.c.diff?cvsroot=gcc&only_with_tag=gcc-3_3-branch&r1=1.149&r2=1.149.2.1 -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13944 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You reported the bug, or are watching the reporter.
Bug#235870: gcc-3.3: support backtrace on ia64
Branden Robinson writes: > Package: gcc-3.3 > Version: 1:3.3.3-0pre3 > Severity: normal > > [I checked 1:3.3.3-1, and it doesn't have this functionality, either.] > > Please apply the following patches from upstream CVS so that glibc can > also be modified to support backtracing on ia64. > > http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/ChangeLog.diff?cvsroot=gcc&only_with_tag=gcc-3_3-branch&r1=1.16114.2.784&r2=1.16114.2.785 > http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/config/ia64/unwind-ia64.c.diff?cvsroot=gcc&only_with_tag=gcc-3_3-branch&r1=1.13.2.2&r2=1.13.2.3 these are changes from last October already applied in both package versions you checked. I'm confused ...
[Bug c++/13944] [3.3 Regression] exception in constructor of a class to be thrown is not caught
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-03-03 16:28 --- Fixed now so closing. -- What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution||FIXED http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13944 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You reported the bug, or are watching the reporter.
Bug#235870: gcc-3.3: support backtrace on ia64
On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 11:02:15AM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote: > Branden Robinson writes: > > Package: gcc-3.3 > > Version: 1:3.3.3-0pre3 > > Severity: normal > > > > [I checked 1:3.3.3-1, and it doesn't have this functionality, either.] > > > > Please apply the following patches from upstream CVS so that glibc can > > also be modified to support backtracing on ia64. > > > > http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/ChangeLog.diff?cvsroot=gcc&only_with_tag=gcc-3_3-branch&r1=1.16114.2.784&r2=1.16114.2.785 > > http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/config/ia64/unwind-ia64.c.diff?cvsroot=gcc&only_with_tag=gcc-3_3-branch&r1=1.13.2.2&r2=1.13.2.3 > > these are changes from last October already applied in both package versions > you checked. I'm confused ... Huh; when I unpacked the package and ran "debian/rules patch", I didn't see the changes. But then too, the patch rule did produce some scary-looking warnings. Is that the right way to inspect the unpacked source tree? -- Branden Robinson | GPG signed/encrypted mail welcome [EMAIL PROTECTED] | 1024D/9C0BCBFB Progeny Linux Systems | D5F6 D4C9 E25B 3D37 068C | 72E8 0F42 191A 9C0B CBFB
Bug#235870: gcc-3.3: support backtrace on ia64
Branden Robinson writes: > On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 11:02:15AM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote: > > Branden Robinson writes: > > > Package: gcc-3.3 > > > Version: 1:3.3.3-0pre3 > > > Severity: normal > > > > > > [I checked 1:3.3.3-1, and it doesn't have this functionality, either.] > > > > > > Please apply the following patches from upstream CVS so that glibc can > > > also be modified to support backtracing on ia64. > > > > > > http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/ChangeLog.diff?cvsroot=gcc&only_with_tag=gcc-3_3-branch&r1=1.16114.2.784&r2=1.16114.2.785 > > > http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/config/ia64/unwind-ia64.c.diff?cvsroot=gcc&only_with_tag=gcc-3_3-branch&r1=1.13.2.2&r2=1.13.2.3 > > > > these are changes from last October already applied in both package versions > > you checked. I'm confused ... > > Huh; when I unpacked the package and ran "debian/rules patch", I didn't > see the changes. debian/rules unpack > But then too, the patch rule did produce some scary-looking warnings. > Is that the right way to inspect the unpacked source tree? the change is not in the debian patches, but in the upstream gcc-3.3.3 tarball (and was in the gcc-3.3.2 upstream tarball).
Re: Status of debian-installer on PPC64
This is a mail about a possible PPC64 port and how to get started; I removed some parts, and only include what is relevant to -gcc (the full message can be found on the -powerpc list). * Anton Blanchard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-03-03 23:21]: > An overview of the current status: > > - 64bit 2.6 (straight from Linus) should compile and boot on G5, pseries [...] > > - binutils works with 64bit, in fact the current 32bit binutils in > debian has 64bit support enabled (I requested that a while ago). > > - gcc-3.3 requires patches. This is the sticking point at the moment. > The current repository for this is the SUSE 3.3 hammer branch, it > includes all the required 64bit support as well. Does debian have a > x86-64 toolchain? If so its probably the hammer branch and we can > share with those packages. If not we can handle it a number of ways > (eg patch against 3.3 mainline). > > - My understanding is gcc-3.4 will have all the necessary patches. > > - glibc works with 64bit > > On a related topic, 32bit ppc currently has no NPTL libc build because > some of the changes did not make it into gcc-3.3. Again the gcc-3.3 > hammer branch or gcc-3.4 have the bits. I can understand the guys not > wanting to upset too much before the next release but we need to get > NPTL support in or we will be behind x64, x86-64, s390 and ia64. The > suggestion was to do some experimental gcc-3.3-hammer + libc6-nptl > packages. Maybe this could tie in with our ppc64 toolchains. Can we get those patches into GCC 3.3 or are those changes too intrusive? What is the status of GCC 3.4, and are those patches in our gcc-snapshot package? -- Martin Michlmayr [EMAIL PROTECTED]
