PLEASE REPLY TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ONLY, *NOT* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11084
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
PLEASE REPLY TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ONLY, *NOT* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11052
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2003-06-03 22:24 ---
Subject: Re: [3.3 regression] [arm] ICE (segfault) compiling xfree86
On Tue, Jun 03, 2003 at 05:52:16P
>Submitter-Id: net
>Originator:Matteo Frigo
>Organization: lost during childhood
>Confidential: no
>Synopsis: A case where -fnew-ra seriously degrades performance
>Severity: serious
>Priority: low
>Category: optimization
>Class: pessimizes-code
>Release: 3.
Your message dated Tue, 3 Jun 2003 17:59:17 -0400
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#195865: gcc-3.3 wrongly complains about shadowed
declarations
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
On Mon, 2 Jun 2003, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 03, 2003 at 12:50:31AM +0200, Michael Renner wrote:
> > Package: gcc-3.3
> > Version: 1:3.3-2
> > Severity: minor
> > Tags: upstream
> >
> > It seems as if gcc-3.3 has some builtin "stuff" which causes wrong
> > reports on shadowed decla
LAST_UPDATED: Sat May 31 08:01:13 UTC 2003
Native configuration is arm-unknown-linux-gnu
=== libjava tests ===
Running target unix
FAIL: natlongfield.cc compilation
FAIL: natshortfield.cc compilation
FAIL: calls run
WARNING: program timed out.
FAIL: cxxtest run
FAIL: field run
F
PLEASE REPLY TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ONLY, *NOT* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11052
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2003-06-03 17:52 ---
Richard,
you're right, I do get the failure on arm-elf now. I'm not sure why I didn't
before. If you s
PLEASE REPLY TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ONLY, *NOT* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11052
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2003-06-03 16:52 ---
Subject: Re: [3.3 regression] [arm] ICE (segfault)
compiling xfree86
> On Tue, Jun 03, 2003 at 04:13
PLEASE REPLY TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ONLY, *NOT* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11052
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2003-06-03 16:12 ---
Subject: Re: [3.3 regression] [arm] ICE (segfault) compiling xfree86
On Tue, Jun 03, 2003 at 04:13:09P
On Fri, May 30, 2003 at 10:54:51AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Adrian Bunk writes:
> > Package: gcc-3.3
> > Version: 1:3.3-2
> > Severity: normal
> >
> >
> > Building gcc-3.3 on a woody system with some additional updates produces
> > the following messages:
> >
> > <-- snip -->
> >
> > It
PLEASE REPLY TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ONLY, *NOT* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11052
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[3
Accepted:
gcc-snapshot_20030531-2_arm.deb
to pool/main/g/gcc-snapshot/gcc-snapshot_20030531-2_arm.deb
Thank you for your contribution to Debian.
PLEASE REPLY TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ONLY, *NOT* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11052
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2003-06-03 15:13 ---
Subject: Re: [3.3 regression] [arm] ICE (segfault)
compiling xfree86
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> I ne
Your message dated Tue, 3 Jun 2003 14:32:45 +0200
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#195806: g++: inheritance of overloaded function
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
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> merge 195911 195913
Bug#195911: gcc-3.3: undefined labels with -Os -fPIC
Bug#195913: gcc-3.3: undefined labels with -Os -fPIC
Merged 195911 195913.
> merge 195911 195915
Bug#195911: gcc-3.3: undefined labels with -Os -fPIC
Bug#195915: gcc-3.3: undefine
PLEASE REPLY TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ONLY, *NOT* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11052
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2003-06-03 12:25 ---
Subject: Re: [3.3 regression] [arm] ICE (segfault)
compiling xfree86
> Well, you're the ARM maintain
merge 195911 195913
merge 195911 195915
merge 195911 195919
thanks
Please can you recheck this with binutils-2.14.90.0.4?
Sumedh Wale writes:
> Package: gcc-3.3
> Version: 1:3.3-2
> Severity: important
> Tags: upstream
>
> While compiling XFree86 CVS with gcc-3.3 it compiles fine with default
>
Package: gcc-3.3
Version: 1:3.3-2
Severity: important
Tags: upstream
While compiling XFree86 CVS with gcc-3.3 it compiles fine with default
optimization flags; but trying to compile with -Os results in undefined
symbols in shared libraries (i.e. this problem is only seen with -fPIC
and not otherwi
Package: gcc-3.3
Version: 1:3.3-2
Severity: important
Tags: upstream
While compiling XFree86 CVS with gcc-3.3 it compiles fine with default
optimization flags; but trying to compile with -Os results in undefined
symbols in shared libraries (i.e. this problem is only seen with -fPIC
and not otherwi
Package: gcc-3.3
Version: 1:3.3-2
Severity: important
Tags: upstream
While compiling XFree86 CVS with gcc-3.3 it compiles fine with default
optimization flags; but trying to compile with -Os results in undefined
symbols in shared libraries (i.e. this problem is only seen with -fPIC
and not otherwi
Package: gcc-3.3
Version: 1:3.3-2
Severity: important
Tags: upstream
While compiling XFree86 CVS with gcc-3.3 it compiles fine with default
optimization flags; but trying to compile with -Os results in undefined
symbols in shared libraries (i.e. this problem is only seen with -fPIC
and not otherwi
Your message dated Tue, 3 Jun 2003 12:44:48 +0200
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line not a bug
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
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> reassign 194339 libc6-dev
Bug#194339: __thread problem with woody backports of gcc 3.3
Bug reassigned from package `gcc-3.3' to `libc6-dev'.
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Debian bug tracking system admin
On Tue, Jun 03, 2003 at 11:52:59AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Ryan Murray writes:
> > Package: gcc-snapshot
> > Version: 20030531-2
> > Severity: serious
> >
> > There was an error while trying to autobuild your package:
> >
> > It looks like -O isn't enough to build gcc-snapshot anymore -- c
Ryan Murray writes:
> Package: gcc-snapshot
> Version: 20030531-2
> Severity: serious
>
> There was an error while trying to autobuild your package:
>
> It looks like -O isn't enough to build gcc-snapshot anymore -- can we get it
> changed to -O2 for now on mips and mipsel rather than -O?
Please
Package: gcc-snapshot
Version: 20030531-2
Severity: serious
There was an error while trying to autobuild your package:
> Automatic build of gcc-snapshot_20030531-2 on resume.rfc822.org by
> sbuild/mips 1.170
> Build started at 20030601-1033
[...]
> ** Using build dependencies supplied by packa
26 matches
Mail list logo
