Hi Jeff,
At Thu, 16 Jan 2003 18:14:30 -0800,
Jeff Bailey wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 17, 2003 at 09:39:44AM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote:
>
> > We debian-glibc team plan to prepare cmov-aware libc6.
>
> Sorry I havent been around much, been busy with school. Does this mean
> we now have numbers that sup
I was going to reassign this back to gcc-3.2 but I see the control
message must have never gone through...
On Thu, Jan 16, 2003 at 10:33:20PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> reassign 177036 module-init-tools
> thanks
>
>
> Debian Bug Tracking System writes:
> > Processing commands for [EMAIL PROT
On Fri, Jan 17, 2003 at 09:39:44AM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote:
> We debian-glibc team plan to prepare cmov-aware libc6.
Sorry I havent been around much, been busy with school. Does this mean
we now have numbers that support the generation of optimised libraries?
Tks,
Jeff Bailey
At 16 Jan 2003 18:38:07 +,
Philip Blundell wrote:
> So, per our IRC discussion this afternoon, I think the current plan for
> this is to have ld.so treat CMOV as an optional extension, similar to
> how MMX is handled. In other words:
>
> - Add CMOV to HWCAP_IMPORTANT in glibc.
>
> - Ask th
Package: gcc-3.2
Version: 1:3.2.1-0pre3
Severity: normal
Now that I think about it, I see no good reason to export $CDPATH from a shell,
as I was doing. But if for whatever reason one does export a non-null value of
$CDPATH while building gcc-3.2, say, with "debuild", the build is going to
fail.
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> reassign 177036 gcc-3.2
Bug#177036: Statically linking executable fails (no crtbeginT.o on m68k)
Bug reassigned from package `module-init-tools' to `gcc-3.2'.
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Debian bug tra
Josselin Mouette writes:
> Package: gcc-3.2
> Version: 1:3.2.2-0pre3
> Severity: important
>
> It seems that the m68k buildd encountered a GCC bug while building HDF5
> with gcc-3.2 :
> http://buildd.debian.org/fetch.php?&pkg=hdf5&ver=1.4.4-1&arch=m68k&stamp=1042664726&file=log&as=raw
> The approp
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> reassign 177036 module-init-tools
Bug#177036: Statically linking executable fails (no crtbeginT.o on m68k)
Bug reassigned from package `gcc-3.2' to `module-init-tools'.
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Debi
reassign 177036 module-init-tools
thanks
Debian Bug Tracking System writes:
> Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
>
> > reassign 177036 gcc-3.2
> Bug#177036: module-init-tools_0.9.8-1(m68k/unstable/poseidon): FTBFS on m68k
> Bug reassigned from package `module-init-tools' to `gcc-3.2'.
>
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> reassign 177036 gcc-3.2
Bug#177036: module-init-tools_0.9.8-1(m68k/unstable/poseidon): FTBFS on m68k
Bug reassigned from package `module-init-tools' to `gcc-3.2'.
> retitle 177036 Statically linking executable fails (no crtbeginT.o on m68k)
Bug#177036:
Package: g++-3.2
Version: 1:3.2.2-0pre5
Severity: normal
Tags: upstream
Occasionally it is useful to compile the output of bison with C++.
However, bison output contains the following lines:
>yyerrlab1:
>
> /* Suppress GCC warning that yyerrlab1 is unused when no action
> invokes YYERROR.
In chiark.mail.debian.devel, you wrote:
>Which kernel version do you check? I couldn't find such code...
>Resolving in the kernel is very clear for me, without downgrading all
>i686 binaries performance...
The kernel will put a cmov flag in /proc/cpuinfo if the CPU has a cmov
instruction, which
So, per our IRC discussion this afternoon, I think the current plan for
this is to have ld.so treat CMOV as an optional extension, similar to
how MMX is handled. In other words:
- Add CMOV to HWCAP_IMPORTANT in glibc.
- Ask the maintainers of openssl and any other affected packages to put
thei
Package: gcc-3.2
Version: 1:3.2.2-0pre3
Severity: important
It seems that the m68k buildd encountered a GCC bug while building HDF5
with gcc-3.2 :
http://buildd.debian.org/fetch.php?&pkg=hdf5&ver=1.4.4-1&arch=m68k&stamp=1042664726&file=log&as=raw
The appropriate lines are :
gcc -Wno-long-long -ans
GOTO Masanori schrieb:
> At Mon, 13 Jan 2003 11:36:50 +,
> David Goodenough wrote:
>
>>On Monday 13 January 2003 10:44, Christoph Martin wrote:
>>
>>>David Goodenough schrieb:
>>>
On Tuesday 05 November 2002 14:27, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
>On Tue, Nov 05, 2002 at 02:17:40PM +00
At Mon, 13 Jan 2003 11:36:50 +,
David Goodenough wrote:
>
> On Monday 13 January 2003 10:44, Christoph Martin wrote:
> > David Goodenough schrieb:
> > > On Tuesday 05 November 2002 14:27, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > >>On Tue, Nov 05, 2002 at 02:17:40PM +, David Goodenough wrote:
> > >>>On
16 matches
Mail list logo
