Re: Confirming a bug in new bugzilla?
On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 10:44:54PM -0700, Steve Kargl wrote: > So, with the new bugzilla, how does one confirm a bug > is a bug? If I click on the button next to the > "status:" field, the selections listed are unconfirmed, > new, assigned, suspended, waiting, and resolved. Where's > the confirm selection? NEW or ASSIGNED means it has been confirmed, UNCONFIRMED means it has not been confirmed. Jakub
gcj fails to compile java
I've filed PR45773 concerning the new regression in gcj where java classes can
no longer be compiled with ecj.jar. Since r163770 (with r163814 backported to
fix
the libjava build), any attempt to compile a java source file with gcj produces
the error...
gcj --main=testme -O testme.java
Exception in thread "main" java.lang.NoClassDefFoundError:
org.eclipse.jdt.internal.compiler.batch.GCCMain
at gnu.java.lang.MainThread.run(libgcj.12.dylib)
Caused by: java.lang.ClassNotFoundException:
org.eclipse.jdt.internal.compiler.batch.GCCMain not found in
gnu.gcj.runtime.SystemClassLoader{urls=[file:/sw/share/java/ecj/ecj.jar,file:./],
parent=gnu.gcj.runtime.ExtensionClassLoader{urls=[], parent=null}}
at java.net.URLClassLoader.findClass(libgcj.12.dylib)
at java.lang.ClassLoader.loadClass(libgcj.12.dylib)
at java.lang.ClassLoader.loadClass(libgcj.12.dylib)
at gnu.java.lang.MainThread.run(libgcj.12.dylib)
This problem does not exist at r163768. I am reposting this problem since the
new
bugzilla keeps reporting...
GCC Bugzilla has suffered an internal error. Please save this page and send it
to dber...@gcc.gnu.org with details of what you were doing at the time this
message appeared.
URL: file:///Users/howarth/Internal Error.html
There was an error sending mail from '"howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu"
' to 'java-...@gcc.gnu.org':Can't send data
whenever I add new information and nothing appears in the gcc-bugs archives
from those sessions
(although the PR itself if updated).
Jack
Re: Confirming a bug in new bugzilla?
On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 10:46:32AM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 10:44:54PM -0700, Steve Kargl wrote: > > So, with the new bugzilla, how does one confirm a bug > > is a bug? If I click on the button next to the > > "status:" field, the selections listed are unconfirmed, > > new, assigned, suspended, waiting, and resolved. Where's > > the confirm selection? > > NEW or ASSIGNED means it has been confirmed, UNCONFIRMED means it has not > been confirmed. > Thanks. I was interpreting NEW to literally mean "this is a NEW bug report" as the the very first submission. -- Steve
Re: Confirming a bug in new bugzilla?
On 25 September 2010 16:28, Steve Kargl wrote: > On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 10:46:32AM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote: >> On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 10:44:54PM -0700, Steve Kargl wrote: >> > So, with the new bugzilla, how does one confirm a bug >> > is a bug? If I click on the button next to the >> > "status:" field, the selections listed are unconfirmed, >> > new, assigned, suspended, waiting, and resolved. Where's >> > the confirm selection? >> >> NEW or ASSIGNED means it has been confirmed, UNCONFIRMED means it has not >> been confirmed. >> > > Thanks. I was interpreting NEW to literally mean > "this is a NEW bug report" as the the very first > submission. All the status have well-defined meanings: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/management.html Unfortunately, there is some duplication: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/page.cgi?id=fields.html Cheers, Manuel.
Re: Confirming a bug in new bugzilla?
On 25 September 2010 15:28, Steve Kargl wrote: > On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 10:46:32AM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote: >> On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 10:44:54PM -0700, Steve Kargl wrote: >> > So, with the new bugzilla, how does one confirm a bug >> > is a bug? If I click on the button next to the >> > "status:" field, the selections listed are unconfirmed, >> > new, assigned, suspended, waiting, and resolved. Where's >> > the confirm selection? >> >> NEW or ASSIGNED means it has been confirmed, UNCONFIRMED means it has not >> been confirmed. >> > > Thanks. I was interpreting NEW to literally mean > "this is a NEW bug report" as the the very first > submission. The statuses haven't changed, it's just that the old bugzilla's "confirm bug" button changed UNCONFIRMED to NEW, or the "confirm and assign" one changed UNCONFIRMED to ASSIGNED.
Re: Bugzilla outage Thursday, September 23, 18:00GMT-21:00GMT
Thank you, Frédéric, despite a few bug reports the upgrade went very smoothly and it's great that we have a modern version of Bugzilla now. Was it a conscious decision for the "Add me to CC list" checkbox to be ticked by default? It means that I get added to the CC list whenever I comment on a bug, something I do often as a maintainer, but I rarely want to be CC'd by default. I follow most bugs via the email archives and only CC myself on bugs I am especially interested in (I use searching for myself in the CC list as a search for the bugs I care most about.) I'm sure I can get used to unticking the checkbox before I comment, I'm just wondering if I'm the only one who preferred the old behaviour.
Re: Bugzilla outage Thursday, September 23, 18:00GMT-21:00GMT
Le 25. 09. 10 17:10, Jonathan Wakely a écrit : > Was it a conscious decision for the "Add me to CC list" checkbox to be > ticked by default? Yes, because most of the time, when you comment on a bug, other users may react to your comment, or ask for more information, etc... In that case, it's important that you see these comments. But note that Bugzilla 3.6 is controlled by several default user preferences (like this one), which can be overridden by your own preferences. Simply visit this page, and set your user preferences as you like them: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi Of course, these preferences are per user, and will only affect your account (unlike parameters which are global and can only be accessed by administrators). ;) In this specific case, look at the "Automatically add me to the CC list of bugs I change" user preference, and set it to "Never". There are other great features in Bugzilla 3.6. Should I enumerate some of them? :-D Frédéric
Re: Bugzilla outage Thursday, September 23, 18:00GMT-21:00GMT
2010/9/25 Frédéric Buclin: > Le 25. 09. 10 17:10, Jonathan Wakely a écrit : >> Was it a conscious decision for the "Add me to CC list" checkbox to be >> ticked by default? > > Yes, because most of the time, when you comment on a bug, other users > may react to your comment, or ask for more information, etc... In that > case, it's important that you see these comments. That's why I follow the mail archives, but the fact this is customisable is perfect - thanks for the tip.
[Ada] SCIL file generation in the trunk
Is this supposed to work (it seems to me that -gnatC is silently ignored), and is the generated file format documented somewhere?
About DECL_UID
Hi All, May the DECL_UID of any two local variables of two separated functions be the same during LTO ? Thanks, Hongtao Yu Purdue University
Re: About DECL_UID
On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 16:40, Hongtao wrote: > May the DECL_UID of any two local variables of two separated functions > be the same during LTO ? No. DECL_UIDs are unique within a single translation unit. Diego.
Re: About DECL_UID
On 09/25/10 16:48, Diego Novillo wrote: > On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 16:40, Hongtao wrote: > >> May the DECL_UID of any two local variables of two separated functions >> be the same during LTO ? > No. DECL_UIDs are unique within a single translation unit. > OK, thanks. But it means there may be two local variables in different source files that can own the same DECL_UID, though LTO links the two source files together? Hongtao > Diego. >
Re: About DECL_UID
On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 16:52, Hongtao wrote: > OK, thanks. But it means there may be two local variables in > different source files that can own the same DECL_UID, though LTO links > the two source files together? Sure, but when the bytecode files are instantiated during read-in, lto1 will create an in-memory representation for both decls which will receive distinct DECL_UIDs. Diego.
gcc-4.6-20100925 is now available
Snapshot gcc-4.6-20100925 is now available on ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.6-20100925/ and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details. This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.6 SVN branch with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/trunk revision 164623 You'll find: gcc-4.6-20100925.tar.bz2 Complete GCC (includes all of below) MD5=9412b37287970d19d5fd50891a05fb44 SHA1=225843c60d96fefc9f5d03746629a79a74c12426 gcc-core-4.6-20100925.tar.bz2C front end and core compiler MD5=83047a8a963fd68ba4fa1d9132146929 SHA1=386cdcc53d3196b2717b8d490667d7a79ce32160 gcc-ada-4.6-20100925.tar.bz2 Ada front end and runtime MD5=222d0b251eae403d2888966b9a7d5fe9 SHA1=94e4581aec9a92c18113a536cc6999fc1962ca76 gcc-fortran-4.6-20100925.tar.bz2 Fortran front end and runtime MD5=fc42a13c4246fec32aae883ede81d2fb SHA1=7333151c27032048048901be58f363a83bc2f649 gcc-g++-4.6-20100925.tar.bz2 C++ front end and runtime MD5=f1775ae2aa6a9d475bfc84853df51aa7 SHA1=75bc9cc7bb61f522297ea585f54500db28298df7 gcc-java-4.6-20100925.tar.bz2Java front end and runtime MD5=6f3bd2627dcde43a0f94e888b363ad85 SHA1=6ef6a55e794a65d425da9979b27f84133ced0992 gcc-objc-4.6-20100925.tar.bz2Objective-C front end and runtime MD5=523a9e1ba13110c0b961d4467aa659f1 SHA1=f76161902644f6074c32a0df04ca85bf9b7cf715 gcc-testsuite-4.6-20100925.tar.bz2 The GCC testsuite MD5=f0ce2b9daffa335dca0b337ef83cc5af SHA1=098bb7565084a3d94a0fa707b63749308351d421 Diffs from 4.6-20100918 are available in the diffs/ subdirectory. When a particular snapshot is ready for public consumption the LATEST-4.6 link is updated and a message is sent to the gcc list. Please do not use a snapshot before it has been announced that way.
Re: Bugzilla outage Thursday, September 23, 18:00GMT-21:00GMT
Jonathan Wakely writes: > Thank you, Frédéric, despite a few bug reports the upgrade went very > smoothly and it's great that we have a modern version of Bugzilla now. > > Was it a conscious decision for the "Add me to CC list" checkbox to be > ticked by default? It means that I get added to the CC list whenever > I comment on a bug, something I do often as a maintainer, but I rarely > want to be CC'd by default. I follow most bugs via the email archives > and only CC myself on bugs I am especially interested in (I use > searching for myself in the CC list as a search for the bugs I care > most about.) > > I'm sure I can get used to unticking the checkbox before I comment, > I'm just wondering if I'm the only one who preferred the old > behaviour. I kind of like the new default, but it's not a big deal to me. Ian
Re: [C++0x] implementing forward declarations for enums
On 09/20/2010 09:58 AM, Rodrigo Rivas wrote: This patch tries to implement the C++0x featue "Forward declarations for enums" aka "opaque enum declarations": Great! BTW, please send C++ patches to gcc-patches and CC me so that I see them right away; I tend to fall behind on the mailing lists. I'll take a look at this soon. Jason
