Bug#319570: g++-4.0: ICE: Segmentation fault
Brian M. Carlson writes: > Package: g++-4.0 > Version: 4.0.1-2 > Severity: important > Justification: may break C++ transition of libcrypto++ > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: RIPEMD160 > > g++ -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I. -I. -g -Wall -fno-strict-aliasing -O2 > -frepo -Wno-unused -Werror -MT dll.lo -MD -MP -MF .deps/dll.Tpo -c > dll.cpp -fPIC -DPIC -o .libs/dll.o > dll.cpp:42: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault > Please submit a full bug report, > with preprocessed source if appropriate. > See http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs.html> for instructions. > For Debian GNU/Linux specific bug reporting instructions, > see . The preprocessed source is missing. ^^^ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[Bug target/22627] [4.1 regression, hppa] bootstrap error
--- Additional Comments From joseph at codesourcery dot com 2005-07-23 13:17 --- Subject: Re: New: [4.1 regression, hppa] bootstrap error On Sat, 23 Jul 2005, debian-gcc at lists dot debian dot org wrote: > ../../src/gcc/crtstuff.c:489: internal compiler error: tree check: expected > tree_list, have ceil_div_expr in reloc_needed, at config/pa/pa.c:2003 This is bug 22577. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22627 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You reported the bug, or are watching the reporter. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#319616: add -DDEBIAN flag
Package: gcc-4.0 Version: 4.0.1-2 Severity: wishlist Tags: patch Hi! It seems defining the DEBIAN macro in source packages has become a common trend. I could find around 60 packages that define this or equivalent macros (the most common one being DEBIAN). What would you think of standarising it a bit by defining this macro in gcc? I can think of a few advantages, including that upstream developers can use it to identify our distribution. Please consider the attached patch. -- System Information: Debian Release: testing/unstable APT prefers unstable APT policy: (500, 'unstable') Architecture: i386 (i686) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash Kernel: Linux 2.6.11-1-k7 Locale: LANG=en_US, LC_CTYPE=en_US (charmap=ANSI_X3.4-1968) (ignored: LC_ALL set to C) Versions of packages gcc-4.0 depends on: ii binutils2.16.1-2 The GNU assembler, linker and bina ii cpp-4.0 4.0.1-2 The GNU C preprocessor ii gcc-4.0-base4.0.1-2 The GNU Compiler Collection (base ii libc6 2.3.2.ds1-22 GNU C Library: Shared libraries an ii libgcc1 1:4.0.1-2GCC support library Versions of packages gcc-4.0 recommends: ii libc6-dev 2.3.2.ds1-22 GNU C Library: Development Librari pn libmudflap0-dev(no description available) -- no debconf information define_debian.dpatch Description: application/shellscript
[Bug target/22627] [4.1 regression, hppa] bootstrap error
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-23 15:23 --- *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 22577 *** -- What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution||DUPLICATE http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22627 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You reported the bug, or are watching the reporter. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[Bug target/22577] [4.1 Regression] PA bootstrap fails
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-23 15:23 --- *** Bug 22627 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- What|Removed |Added CC||debian-gcc at lists dot ||debian dot org http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22577 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#319616: marked as done (add -DDEBIAN flag)
Your message dated Sat, 23 Jul 2005 19:04:06 +0200 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#319616: add -DDEBIAN flag 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 reopen the Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith. (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact me immediately.) Debian bug tracking system administrator (administrator, Debian Bugs database) -- Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 23 Jul 2005 14:33:13 + >From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Jul 23 07:33:13 2005 Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Received: from 216.red-62-57-140.user.auna.net (aragorn) [62.57.140.216] by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.36 1 (Debian)) id 1DwL3w-tS-00; Sat, 23 Jul 2005 07:33:12 -0700 Received: from rmh by aragorn with local (Exim 4.52) id 1DwL4I-0003fK-Ti; Sat, 23 Jul 2005 16:33:35 +0200 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===0359210800==" MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Debian Bug Tracking System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: add -DDEBIAN flag X-Mailer: reportbug 3.15 Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2005 16:33:34 +0200 Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-8.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_PACKAGE autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02 This is a multi-part MIME message sent by reportbug. --===0359210800== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Package: gcc-4.0 Version: 4.0.1-2 Severity: wishlist Tags: patch Hi! It seems defining the DEBIAN macro in source packages has become a common trend. I could find around 60 packages that define this or equivalent macros (the most common one being DEBIAN). What would you think of standarising it a bit by defining this macro in gcc? I can think of a few advantages, including that upstream developers can use it to identify our distribution. Please consider the attached patch. -- System Information: Debian Release: testing/unstable APT prefers unstable APT policy: (500, 'unstable') Architecture: i386 (i686) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash Kernel: Linux 2.6.11-1-k7 Locale: LANG=en_US, LC_CTYPE=en_US (charmap=ANSI_X3.4-1968) (ignored: LC_ALL set to C) Versions of packages gcc-4.0 depends on: ii binutils2.16.1-2 The GNU assembler, linker and bina ii cpp-4.0 4.0.1-2 The GNU C preprocessor ii gcc-4.0-base4.0.1-2 The GNU Compiler Collection (base ii libc6 2.3.2.ds1-22 GNU C Library: Shared libraries an ii libgcc1 1:4.0.1-2GCC support library Versions of packages gcc-4.0 recommends: ii libc6-dev 2.3.2.ds1-22 GNU C Library: Development Librari pn libmudflap0-dev(no description available) -- no debconf information --===0359210800== Content-Type: application/x-shellscript MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="define_debian.dpatch" IyEgL2Jpbi9zaCAtZQoKIyBBbGwgbGluZXMgYmVnaW5uaW5nIHdpdGggYCMgRFBBVENIOicgYXJl IGEgZGVzY3JpcHRpb24gb2YgdGhlIHBhdGNoLgojIERQOiBEZWZpbmUgREVCSUFOIG1hY3JvLgoK ZGlyPQppZiBbICQjIC1lcSAzIC1hICIkMiIgPSAnLWQnIF07IHRoZW4KICAgIHBkaXI9Ii1kICQz IgogICAgZGlyPSIkMy8iCmVsaWYgWyAkIyAtbmUgMSBdOyB0aGVuCiAgICBlY2hvID4mMiAiYGJh c2VuYW1lICQwYDogc2NyaXB0IGV4cGVjdHMgLXBhdGNofC11bnBhdGNoIGFzIGFyZ3VtZW50Igog ICAgZXhpdCAxCmZpCmNhc2UgIiQxIiBpbgogICAgLXBhdGNoKQogICAgICAgIHBhdGNoICRwZGly IC1mIC0tbm8tYmFja3VwLWlmLW1pc21hdGNoIC1wMSA8ICQwCiAgICAgICAgOzsKICAgIC11bnBh dGNoKQogICAgICAgIHBhdGNoICRwZGlyIC1mIC0tbm8tYmFja3VwLWlmLW1pc21hdGNoIC1SIC1w MSA8ICQwCiAgICAgICAgOzsKICAgICopCiAgICAgICAgZWNobyA+JjIgImBiYXNlbmFtZSAkMGA6 IHNjcmlwdCBleHBlY3RzIC1wYXRjaHwtdW5wYXRjaCBhcyBhcmd1bWVudCIKICAgICAgICBleGl0 IDEKZXNhYwpleGl0IDAKCiMgYXBwZW5kIHRoZSBwYXRjaCBoZXJlIGFuZCBhZGp1c3QgdGhlIC1w PyBmbGFnIGluIHRoZSBwYXRjaCBjYWxscy4KCmRpZmYgLXVyIGdjYy00LjAuMS5vbGQvZ2NjL2Nv bmZpZy9nbnUuaCBnY2MtNC4wLjEvZ2NjL2NvbmZpZy9nbnUuaAotLS0gZ2NjLTQuMC4xLm9sZC9n Y2MvY29uZmlnL2dudS5oCTIwMDQtMDctMDUgMjE6NDk6MTQuMDAwMDAwMDAwICswMjAwCisrKyBn Y2MtNC4wLjEvZ2NjL2NvbmZpZy9nbnUuaAkyMDA1LTA3LTIzIDE2OjE3OjI4LjAwMDAwMDAwMCAr MDIwMApAQCAtMTcsNiArMTcsNyBAQAogCiAjZGVmaW5lIEhVUkRfVEFSR0VUX09TX0NQUF9CVUlM VElOUygpCQlcCiAgICAgZG8gewkJCQkJXAorCWJ1aWx0aW5fZGVmaW5lICgiREVCSUFOIik7CQlc CiAJYnVpbHRpbl9kZWZpbmUgKCJfX2dudV9odXJkX18iKTsJXAogCWJ1aWx0aW5fZGVmaW5lICgi X19HTlVfXyIpOwkJXAogCWJ1aWx0aW5fZGVmaW5lX3N0ZCAoInVuaXgiKTsJCVwKZGlmZi
Re: Bug#317082: libc6-s390x: missing depends on lib64gcc1
reassign 317082 dpkg-dev
thanks
Summary:
The bug submitted in #317082 that requests adding "Depends:
lib64gcc1" to libc6-s390x on s390. However the bug submitted in
#258647 that requests removing "Depends: lib64gcc1" to libc6-sparc64
on sparc. Both bugs are conflicted because both libc6-s390x and
libc6-sparc64 packages are equivalent as 64bit libc6 biarch package.
I decided to remove "Depends: lib64gcc1" from libc6 which explains
below. This bug should be fixed as dpkg-dev's dpkg-shlibdeps
handles 64 bit libraries like dpkg-cross' dpkg-shlibdeps does.
Debian sparc and s390 people, from glibc 2.3.5-2 and until
dpkg-shlibdeps supports 64bit libraries correctly, when you install
biarch 64 bit binary packages, you may have some problems: installed
binaries can't resolve 64bit libraries. In that case, please
install such libraries packages manually.
At Thu, 14 Jul 2005 15:26:58 +0900,
GOTO Masanori wrote:
> At Tue, 12 Jul 2005 19:44:11 +0200,
> Matthias Klose wrote:
> > GOTO Masanori writes:
> > > At Tue, 05 Jul 2005 20:09:59 -0700,
> > > Ryan Murray wrote:
> > > > libc6-s390x is missing a depends on lib64gcc1 that causes gcc to fail
> > > > to link
> > > > when -m64 is used on an s390 system.
> > > >
> > > > I'm filling the bug here rather than on the gcc-VERSION packages
> > > > because the
> > > > sparc64 packages have the dependency in libc6-sparc64, and not the gcc
> > > > packages.
> > >
> > > According to #258647, the latest glibc.deb in svn already removed the
> > > "Depends: lib64gcc1" entry. So I think it should be fixed in gcc
> > > packages instead of libc6-s390x. How about this idea?
> >
> > I don't know of a good way to handle the 64bit dependencies. We do not
> > want to unconditionally depend on the non-default biarch packages.
> > dh_shlibdeps doesn't work for 64bit packages, so you have to hand-code
> > all the dependencies ...
> >
> > maybe dpkg-shlibdeps could use objdump -x instead of ldd to determine
> > the needed library dependencies?
>
> I tested this problem on sparc64, dpkg-shlibdeps detects lib64gcc1 -
> even if libc6 does not depend on it.
The actual concern suggested by Matthias was: dpkg-shlibdeps can't
resolve 64 bit libraries when the built environment uses 32 bit
kernel.
The current dpkg-shlibdeps detects dependent libraries using "ldd" and
"objdump". However "/bin/ldd 64bit-binaries" can't work on 32bit
kernel (it's the correct behavior). "objdump -p" can't show the
actual path because elf binary has library names, but not library
pathnames. And dpkg-shlibdeps can't work for 64bit binaries on 32bit
environment.
The current libc6-sparc64 in sarge has "Depends: lib64gcc1". However
this kind of manual assignment for debian/control file is a bad way.
Why is it "bad"? Because in future we probably have more biarch
applications (ex: imagine multimedia gnome application that handles
over 4GB video data, and it has a lot of library dependencies), so
manual handling should be dropped. I removed this dependency from
glibc 2.3.5-2 in experimental.
The correct fix discussed and suggested by Ryan, Daniel and Matthias
was: dpkg-shlibdeps should handle 64bit library dependencies even on
32 bit kernels correctly. Actually dpkg-shlibsdeps in dpkg-cross
package should have worked nicely because it considers about 64bit
libraries.
BTW, Nikita, dpkg-shlibdeps in dpkg-cross should have additional elf64
entries for ppc64 and amd64 like:
@crosslib64formats = ("elf64-sparc", "elf64-s390", "elf64-x86-64",
"elf64-powerpc");
Regards,
-- gotom
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[Bug target/22577] [4.1 Regression] PA bootstrap fails
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-23 21:36 --- Subject: Bug 22577 CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc Module name:gcc Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-07-23 21:36:40 Modified files: gcc: ChangeLog gcc/config/pa : pa.c Log message: PR target/22577 * config/pa/pa.c (reloc_needed): Updated for VECs inside CONSTRUCTOR. Patches: http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/ChangeLog.diff?cvsroot=gcc&r1=2.9525&r2=2.9526 http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/config/pa/pa.c.diff?cvsroot=gcc&r1=1.303&r2=1.304 -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22577 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[Bug target/22577] [4.1 Regression] PA bootstrap fails
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-07-23 21:37 --- Thanks Steve! -- What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution||FIXED http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22577 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug #319255
Matthias Klose wrote: >it's pending an upload (as the definition of pending in the BTS >suggests). I'm sure you did read as well >http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2005/07/msg00013.html Oh bleck. I forgot about that. Of course nothing can happen until that's dealt with. :-P At any rate that means nobody else can upload pacakges either, so nothing not already uploaded can get miscompiled! Hmm. It might be worth sending a note to d-d-a suggesting that people hold off on uploading packages which depend on "volatile" semantics until the new GCC is installed on the buildds. >Happy waiting, Thanks. :-) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
