On Wed, Apr 25, 2001 at 03:47:43PM -0400, Christopher C. Chimelis wrote:
>
> Just plucked 010424 out of the archive and tried compiling after noting
> that the fsirl patch is, once again, applied universally. It's still
> bombing on Alpha
>
> I'm disabling it and enabling the gcc-weaksym pat
On Wed, Apr 25, 2001 at 11:07:56PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> It would be nice if you could find people to look at gcc/g++ bugs
> found at
>
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> which are
>
> - related to the alpha arch
> - C++ related.
>
> and send followups to the bug re
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> severity 89023 normal
Bug#89023: m68k: does not buid, uses illegal assembler code?
Severity set to `normal'.
> retitle 89023 [m68k, workaround] does not buid, uses illegal assembler code?
Bug#89023: m68k: does not buid, uses illegal assembler code?
Cha
On Wed, 25 Apr 2001, Matthias Klose wrote:
> It would be nice if you could find people to look at gcc/g++ bugs
> found at
>
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I'll see what I can do. I've been working on trying to fix the
non-virtual thunk problem in the 3.0 packages on Alpha,
It would be nice if you could find people to look at gcc/g++ bugs
found at
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
which are
- related to the alpha arch
- C++ related.
and send followups to the bug reports. Checking with gcc-2.95.4 and
gcc-3.0 would be nice.
Thanks, Matthias
On Wed, 25 Apr 2001, Matthias Klose wrote:
> if I remember correctly, you assumed that the removed function.c patch
> should resolve the problems. You wanted to send your results "in one
> hour". Could you identify the wrong part in the patch in the meantime?
Thought I had sent a reply, but it
Your message dated Wed, 25 Apr 2001 22:25:39 +0200 (MEST)
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line fixed in gcc-2.95.4-0.010425
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 you
Your message dated Wed, 25 Apr 2001 22:25:39 +0200 (MEST)
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line fixed in gcc-2.95.4-0.010425
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 you
Your message dated Wed, 25 Apr 2001 22:25:39 +0200 (MEST)
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line fixed in gcc-2.95.4-0.010425
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 you
Your message dated Wed, 25 Apr 2001 22:25:39 +0200 (MEST)
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line fixed in gcc-2.95.4-0.010425
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 you
Your message dated Wed, 25 Apr 2001 22:25:39 +0200 (MEST)
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line fixed in gcc-2.95.4-0.010425
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 you
Your message dated Wed, 25 Apr 2001 22:25:39 +0200 (MEST)
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line fixed in gcc-2.95.4-0.010425
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 you
Package: perl
Severity: minor
I am really confused what component caused this bug, so this was filed
against perl, and cc'd to the libstdc and dpkg maintaner. Please reassign
the bug if you feel to know where it does belong.
While upgrading from potato to sid the following happened while 'apt-get
Christopher C. Chimelis writes:
>
> Just plucked 010424 out of the archive and tried compiling after noting
> that the fsirl patch is, once again, applied universally. It's still
> bombing on Alpha
if I remember correctly, you assumed that the removed function.c patch
should resolve the
Just plucked 010424 out of the archive and tried compiling after noting
that the fsirl patch is, once again, applied universally. It's still
bombing on Alpha
I'm disabling it and enabling the gcc-weaksym patch for Alpha for this
upload, but am not at a machine where I can get to the CVS repo
Installing:
libg++2.8.1.3-dbg_2.95.4-0.010424_powerpc.deb
to pool/main/g/gcc-2.95/libg++2.8.1.3-dbg_2.95.4-0.010424_powerpc.deb
gcc-2.95-nof_2.95.4-0.010424_powerpc.deb
to pool/main/g/gcc-2.95/gcc-2.95-nof_2.95.4-0.010424_powerpc.deb
chill-2.95_2.95.4-0.010424_powerpc.deb
to pool/main/g/gcc-
Installing:
gcc-2.95_2.95.4.ds1-0.010424.diff.gz
to pool/main/g/gcc-2.95/gcc-2.95_2.95.4.ds1-0.010424.diff.gz
chill-2.95_2.95.4-0.010424_i386.deb
to pool/main/g/gcc-2.95/chill-2.95_2.95.4-0.010424_i386.deb
gpc-2.95-doc_2.95.4-0.010424_all.deb
to pool/main/g/gcc-2.95/gpc-2.95-doc_2.95.4-0.010
There are disparities between your recently installed upload and the
override file for the following file(s):
libg++2.8.1.3-glibc2.2_2.95.4-0.010424_i386.deb: priority is overridden from
extra to optional.
Either the package or the override file is incorrect. If you think
the override is correc
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> reassign 89023 gcc
Bug#89023: m68k: does not buid, uses illegal assembler code?
Bug reassigned from package `libgmp3' to `gcc'.
>
End of message, stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Darren Benham
(administrator, Debian
19 matches
Mail list logo
