Hi,
wo warste denn hin? Wolltest doch noch den link haben.
Hier also der Link:
http://members.lycos.de/moe1/
Viel spaß
Dann bis demnächst meld dich
cu Schatzi
Hi,
wo warste denn hin? Wolltest doch noch den link haben.
Hier also der Link:
http://members.lycos.de/moe1/
Viel spaß
Dann bis demnächst meld dich
cu Schatzi
On Fri, Dec 27, 2002 at 04:02:56PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> tags 169004 + moreinfo
> tags 169004 + helpneeded
> thanks
>
> - which compiler versions are used?
> - does the bug persist with gcc-3.2.2 and/or the current gcc-snapshot?
It still happens with 1:3.2.2-0pre2 on alpha. This is the
Accepted:
gcc-snapshot_20021227-1.diff.gz
to pool/main/g/gcc-snapshot/gcc-snapshot_20021227-1.diff.gz
gcc-snapshot_20021227-1.dsc
to pool/main/g/gcc-snapshot/gcc-snapshot_20021227-1.dsc
gcc-snapshot_20021227-1_i386.deb
to pool/main/g/gcc-snapshot/gcc-snapshot_20021227-1_i386.deb
gcc-snapshot
Accepted:
gcc-snapshot_20021227-1_hppa.deb
to pool/main/g/gcc-snapshot/gcc-snapshot_20021227-1_hppa.deb
Thank you for your contribution to Debian.
retitle 94701 [fixed in 3.3] Duplicate loop conditions even with -Os
thanks
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> retitle 94701 [fixed in 3.3] Duplicate loop conditions even with -Os
Bug#94701: [PR optimization/2960] Duplicate loop conditions even with -Os
Changed Bug title.
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Debian bug
retitle 151357 [fixed in 3.3/snapshot] gcc-3.x fails to compile virtual
inheritance with variable number of argument methode
thanks
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> retitle 151357 [fixed in 3.3/snapshot] gcc-3.x fails to compile virtual
> inheritance with variable number of argument methode
Bug#151357: [PR c++/7306] gcc-3.x fails to compile virtual inheritance with
variable number of argument methode
Changed Bug
Thank you very much for your problem report.
It has the internal identification `target/9074'.
The individual assigned to look at your
report is: unassigned.
>Category: target
>Responsible:unassigned
>Synopsis: [alpha-linux] gcc fails to compile kernel on wildfire
>Arrival-Date:
On 20021227T222138+0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> where's the bug in the gij-wrapper? both gij-3.0 and gij-3.2 recognize
> the -jar option.
See the bug title. (I just reproduced the bug with gij-3.0.)
The deciding factor seems to be using the java alternative to invoke
gij.
gij-3.2 seems to have
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> forwarded 172090 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#172090: gcc-3.2: [alpha] gcc fails to compile kernel on wildfire
Noted your statement that Bug has been forwarded to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> retitle 172090 [PR target/9074] [alpha] gcc fails to compile kernel on
> wi
Thank you very much for your problem report.
It has the internal identification `libstdc++/9073'.
The individual assigned to look at your
report is: unassigned.
>Category: libstdc++
>Responsible:unassigned
>Synopsis: Can __STL_ASSERTIONS come back, but with more than rope?
>Arriva
Thank you very much for your problem report.
It has the internal identification `other/9071'.
The individual assigned to look at your
report is: unassigned.
>Category: other
>Responsible:unassigned
>Synopsis: Warning for blocks not closed in same file as opened in
>Arrival-Date:
Thank you very much for your problem report.
It has the internal identification `c/9072'.
The individual assigned to look at your
report is: unassigned.
>Category: c
>Responsible:unassigned
>Synopsis: -Wconversion should be split into two distinct flags
>Arrival-Date: Fri Dec 27
>Submitter-Id: net
>Originator:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Organization: The Debian Project
>Confidential: no
>Synopsis:
>Severity: serious
>Priority: medium
>Category: target
>Class: ice-on-legal-code
>Release: 3.2.2 CVS 021212 (Debian) (Debian unstable)
>Environm
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> forwarded 128950 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#128950: gcc-3.0: -Wconversion should be split into two distinct flags
Noted your statement that Bug has been forwarded to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> retitle 128950 [PR c/9072] -Wconversion should be split into two distin
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> forwarded 128993 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#128993: libstdc++3: Can __STL_ASSERTIONS come back, but with more than rope?
Noted your statement that Bug has been forwarded to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> retitle 128993 [PR libstdc++/9073] Can __STL_ASSERTIONS come bac
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> forwarded 122103 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#122103: g++-3.0: Warning for blocks not closed in same file as opened in
Noted your statement that Bug has been forwarded to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> retitle 122103 [PR other/9071] Warning for blocks not closed in same
Your message dated Sat, 28 Dec 2002 00:24:08 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line fixed in gcc-3.2-2.2.2-0pre2
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
>Submitter-Id: net
>Originator:Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Organization: The Debian Project
>Confidential: no
>Synopsis:
>Severity: non-critical
>Priority: low
>Category: libstdc++
>Class: change-request
>Release: 3.0.4 (Debian) (Debian unstabl
>Submitter-Id: net
>Originator:Agthorr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Organization: The Debian Project
>Confidential: no
>Synopsis:
>Severity: non-critical
>Priority: low
>Category: c
>Class: change-request
>Release: 3.2.1 (Debian) (Debian unstable)
>Environment:
Sy
>Submitter-Id: net
>Originator:Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Organization: The Debian Project
>Confidential: no
>Synopsis:
>Severity: non-critical
>Priority: low
>Category: other
>Class: change-request
>Release: 3.2.1 (Debian) (Debian unstable)
>
Your message dated Fri, 27 Dec 2002 23:53:25 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line closing gcc report with updated benchmark results (2.95, 3.0,
3.2, 3.3)
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
Your message dated Sat, 28 Dec 2002 00:10:12 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#158988: libstdc++/9066: docs for char_traits template not
having an implementation
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has be
Synopsis: docs for char_traits template not having an implementation
Responsible-Changed-From-To: unassigned->pme
Responsible-Changed-By: pme
Responsible-Changed-When: Fri Dec 27 14:43:55 2002
Responsible-Changed-Why:
Mine.
State-Changed-From-To: open->closed
State-Changed-By: pme
State-Change
On Fri, Dec 27, 2002 at 03:58:14PM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >Originator: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
GAAAH! Now the braindead BTS will email "info received" messages to
gcc-gnats, which will file them away as "bug reports I wasn't able to parse,"
which means somebody will have to go through an
Matthias Klose wrote:
bug-171561.cc:14: `bin' is not a member of type `std::basic_ios >'
[...]
std::ifstream f (argv[1], ios::bin | std::ios::in);
What gcc is that? I get
a.c:14: `ios' undeclared (first use this function)
If I fix this to read "std::ios::binary", as it should read in C++, I
get
On Fri, 27 Dec 2002, Matthias Klose wrote:
> gcc generates a warning for the following test program, that I believe
> is inappropriate. The warning is that it cannot implicitly cast from
> (foo *) to (const foo *). This occurs when foo is an array type. The
> sample program compiles without war
Thank you very much for your problem report.
It has the internal identification `c/9070'.
The individual assigned to look at your
report is: unassigned.
>Category: c
>Responsible:unassigned
>Synopsis: Improper warning when casting from pointer to non-const array
>to const
>Arriva
>Submitter-Id: net
>Originator:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Organization: The Debian Project
>Confidential: no
>Synopsis:
>Severity: non-critical
>Priority: low
>Category: c
>Class: change-request
>Release: 3.2.1 (Debian) (Debian unstable)
>Environment:
System: Debi
tags 126703 + wontfix
tags 126703 + upstream
thanks
See
http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/libstdc++/faq/index.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/libstdc++/faq/index.html#3_5
On Solaris, g++ (but not gcc) always defines the preprocessor macro
_XOPEN_SOURCE. On GNU/Linux, the same happe
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> tags 126703 + wontfix
Bug#126703: g++-3.0: defines _GNU_SOURCE with g++-3.0
There were no tags set.
Tags added: wontfix
> tags 126703 + upstream
Bug#126703: g++-3.0: defines _GNU_SOURCE with g++-3.0
Tags were: wontfix
Tags added: upstream
> thanks
S
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> retitle 150232 [fixed in gcc-3.1] Odd number in mke2fs output on HPPA
Bug#150232: e2fsprogs: Odd number in mke2fs output on HPPA
Changed Bug title.
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Debian bug tracking syste
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> forwarded 140201 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#140201: libstdc++3: race condition in libstdc++3 (basic_string.tcc)
Noted your statement that Bug has been forwarded to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> retitle 140201 [PR libstdc++/9069] race condition in libstdc++3
> (basic
Thank you very much for your problem report.
It has the internal identification `libstdc++/9069'.
The individual assigned to look at your
report is: unassigned.
>Category: libstdc++
>Responsible:unassigned
>Synopsis: race condition in libstdc++3 (basic_string.tcc)
>Arrival-Date:
>Submitter-Id: net
>Originator:"Carl R. Witty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Organization: The Debian Project
>Confidential: no
>Synopsis:
>Severity: non-critical
>Priority: low
>Category: libstdc++
>Class: change-request
>Release: 3.2.1 (Debian) (Debian unstable)
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> reassign 167569 gij-3.2
Bug#167569: SableCC does not execute properly
Bug reassigned from package `sablecc' to `gij-3.2'.
> tags 167569 + moreinfo
Bug#167569: SableCC does not execute properly
There were no tags set.
Tags added: moreinfo
> thanks
Stop
the bug was assigned back to g++ very quickly. that was wrong.
libglut is linked against a shared library (linked against libstdc++),
but doesn't explicitely link against libstdc++.
this results in symbols like __dynamic_cast be defined in libglut. I
am not sure, if this is wanted behaviour or a
On Fri, Dec 27, 2002 at 11:10:58AM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> tags 172956 + wontfix
> retitle 172956 [fixed in gcc-3.x] Sparc GCC issue with -mcpu=ultrasparc
> thanks
Fair enough - I did not know thiswas fixed in 3.x
As a side question though - do you know if/when the sparc port of
debian pla
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> reassign 134262 glut
Bug#134262: g++-3.0: Use of dynamic_cast makes compiled program segfault
Bug reassigned from package `g++-3.0' to `glut'.
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Debian bug tracking system adm
"Martin v. Löwis" writes:
> > Sorry if this is not a bug, but I cannot find any way why it isn't.
> [...]
> > bin2a.cc: In function `int main(int, char**)':
> > bin2a.cc:9: `cerr' undeclared (first use this function)
>
> It is not a bug, cerr is really not a predefined identifier in C++. What
>
Sorry if this is not a bug, but I cannot find any way why it isn't.
[...]
bin2a.cc: In function `int main(int, char**)':
bin2a.cc:9: `cerr' undeclared (first use this function)
It is not a bug, cerr is really not a predefined identifier in C++. What
you mean is std::cerr.
Regards,
Martin
Your message dated Fri, 27 Dec 2002 18:03:04 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#121668: gcc-3.0: Internal compiler error on IA64
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
Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> tags 170994 + wontfix
> tags 170994 + fixed
> retitle 170994 [fixed in 3.x] ICE on __builtin_memset(s, 0, -1) (2.95 only)
> thanks
>
> marking this report as all other 2.95 reports. Is there a reason you
> cannot use gcc-3.2 for boostraps?
No, not rea
tags 173290 + wontfix
severity 173290 important
thanks
we will switch to gcj-3.2 as default gcj soon. lowering the severity...
gcj-3.0 will soon vanish from the archives ...
Junichi Uekawa writes:
> Package: gcj-3.0
> Version: 1:3.0.4-13
> Severity: grave
>
> /usr/bin/gcj-wrapper-3.0 is missing
Synopsis: vectors of vectors break with -ftrapv
State-Changed-From-To: open->analyzed
State-Changed-By: paolo
State-Changed-When: Fri Dec 27 08:49:32 2002
State-Changed-Why:
Confirmed. Seems related to libstdc++/1823, which I can also
reproduce with gcc3.2.1 (glibc2.3.1, i686-pc-linux-gnu)
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> tags 173290 + wontfix
Bug#173290: gcj package does not provide gcj-wrapper-3.0
There were no tags set.
Tags added: wontfix
> severity 173290 important
Bug#173290: gcj package does not provide gcj-wrapper-3.0
Severity set to `important'.
> thanks
Stopp
Thank you very much for your problem report.
It has the internal identification `c++/9067'.
The individual assigned to look at your
report is: unassigned.
>Category: c++
>Responsible:unassigned
>Synopsis: vectors of vectors break with -ftrapv
>Arrival-Date: Fri Dec 27 08:26:00 P
tags 170994 + wontfix
tags 170994 + fixed
retitle 170994 [fixed in 3.x] ICE on __builtin_memset(s, 0, -1) (2.95 only)
thanks
marking this report as all other 2.95 reports. Is there a reason you
cannot use gcc-3.2 for boostraps?
Falk Hueffner writes:
> Package: gcc-2.95
> Version: 1:2.95.4-15
> Se
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> forwarded 169862 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#169862: g++-3.2: vectors of vectors break with -ftrapv
Noted your statement that Bug has been forwarded to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> retitle 169862 [PR c++/9067] vectors of vectors break with -ftrapv
Bug#169862: g++-3.2
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> forwarded 158988 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#158988: g++-3.2: char_traits template does not have a implementation
Noted your statement that Bug has been forwarded to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> retitle 158988 [PR libstdc++/9066] docs for char_traits template not hav
Thank you very much for your problem report.
It has the internal identification `libstdc++/9066'.
The individual assigned to look at your
report is: unassigned.
>Category: libstdc++
>Responsible:unassigned
>Synopsis: docs for char_traits template not having an implementation
>Arri
Your message dated Fri, 27 Dec 2002 17:05:03 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#40189: c/6898: gcc produces incorrect minimization code
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 no
port #169862.
Please CC [EMAIL PROTECTED] on replies.
Log of report can be found at http://bugs.debian.org/169862 ]
rechecked with 3.2 branch 20021220 and 3.3 branch 20021227
Not sure if this is a problem with the CPU, the kernel, the compiler,
or the library. But this seems the
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> tags 170994 + wontfix
Bug#170994: ICE on __builtin_memset(s, 0, -1) (2.95 only)
There were no tags set.
Tags added: wontfix
> tags 170994 + fixed
Bug#170994: ICE on __builtin_memset(s, 0, -1) (2.95 only)
Tags were: wontfix
Tags added: fixed
> retitle
Your message dated Fri, 27 Dec 2002 16:15:26 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#151182: g++-3.1: struct problems
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
tags 169004 + moreinfo
tags 169004 + helpneeded
thanks
- which compiler versions are used?
- does the bug persist with gcc-3.2.2 and/or the current gcc-snapshot?
Herbert Xu writes:
> reassign 169004 gcc
> merge 85468 169004
> quit
>
> On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 04:06:01PM -0700, dann frazier wrote:
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> tags 169004 + moreinfo
Bug#169004: fping makes unaligned mem accesses, emulated by ia64 kernel
There were no tags set.
Bug#85468: gcc: [alpha] memcpy makes unaligned access
Tags added: moreinfo
> tags 169004 + helpneeded
Unknown tag/s: helpneeded.
Reco
tags 172090 + moreinfo
tags 172090 + helpneeded
thanks
Please could somebody attach the preprocessed source file to the report?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Package: gcc-3.2
> Version: 1:3.2.2-0pre0
> Severity: normal
>
> Compiling the kernel for the Wildfire fails with:
>
> [EMAIL
> PROTECTED]
Your message dated Fri, 27 Dec 2002 14:40:31 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#36876: c/6900: Floating point behaviour of gcc on pentium
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
Brad Spengler writes:
> I'm interested in if Debian would want to create a package for a
> propolice'd gcc. I believe it would be very beneficial to enhance the
> security of a Debian system. If you would like to have this, but don't
> want to take the time to do it yourselves, would you object t
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> tags 172090 + moreinfo
Bug#172090: gcc-3.2: [alpha] gcc fails to compile kernel on wildfire
There were no tags set.
Tags added: moreinfo
> tags 172090 + helpneeded
Unknown tag/s: helpneeded.
Recognized are: patch wontfix moreinfo unreproducible fixed p
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> retitle 153472 [fixed in 3.4, PR c/4106] i386 -fPIC asm ebx clobber no error
Bug#153472: [PR c/4106] i386 -fPIC asm ebx clobber no error
Changed Bug title.
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Debian bug tracki
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> retitle 73065 [fixed in gcc-3.4, PR c/6897] Code produced with -fPIC reserves
> EBX, but compiles bad __asm__ anyway
Bug#73065: [PR c/6897] Code produced with -fPIC reserves EBX, but compiles bad
__asm__ anyway
Changed Bug title.
> thanks
Stopping pr
Your message dated Fri, 27 Dec 2002 12:52:59 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bad syntax error on nested classes' member functions.
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
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> retitle 155900 [fixed in gcc-3.2] nonstandard overloads in num_get facet
Bug#155900: nonstandard overloads in num_get facet
Changed Bug title.
> tags 155900 + fixed
Bug#155900: [fixed in gcc-3.2] nonstandard overloads in num_get facet
There were no tag
Your message dated Fri, 27 Dec 2002 12:36:55 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#169909: gcc-3.2: Internal error when using -O2
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 cas
tags 172353 + wontfix
retitle 172353 [fixed in 3.2] Internal compiler error on alpha for objc
thanks
Andrew Maier writes:
> Package: gobjc-3.0
> Version: 1:3.0.4-7
> Severity: normal
>
> I get a compiler error when trying to recompile the gnustep-base1
> (1.3.0/stable) package for alpha. This may
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> tags 172353 + wontfix
Bug#172353: gobjc-3.0: Internal compiler error on alpha for gobjc-3.0
There were no tags set.
Tags added: wontfix
> retitle 172353 [fixed in 3.2] Internal compiler error on alpha for objc
Bug#172353: gobjc-3.0: Internal compiler e
tags 172956 + wontfix
retitle 172956 [fixed in gcc-3.x] Sparc GCC issue with -mcpu=ultrasparc
thanks
Michel LESPINASSE writes:
> Package: gcc-2.95
> Version: 1:2.95.4-7
>
> When invoking gcc with -mcpu=ultrasparc, the assembler still thinks
> it's compiling for sparclite !
>
> Simple test case:
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> tags 172956 + wontfix
Bug#172956: Sparc GCC issue with -mcpu=ultrasparc
There were no tags set.
Tags added: wontfix
> retitle 172956 [fixed in gcc-3.x] Sparc GCC issue with -mcpu=ultrasparc
Bug#172956: Sparc GCC issue with -mcpu=ultrasparc
Changed Bug
tags 173457 + moreinfo
- you don't say anything about exact gcc versions
- no info about binutils used
- no info about other tools/libraries needed
- what packages did you upgrade in these 3 days?
- simply a pointer to a home page, nothing more
- no version info on cernlib
- does the problem occur
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> tags 173457 + moreinfo
Bug#173457: g77 cernlib doesnt link properly since a few days / resubmit with
package name g77
There were no tags set.
Tags added: moreinfo
> - you don't say anything about exact gcc versions
Unknown command or malformed argumen
74 matches
Mail list logo
