PLEASE REPLY TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ONLY, *NOT* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12527
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target
PLEASE REPLY TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ONLY, *NOT* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12371
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target
PLEASE REPLY TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ONLY, *NOT* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10110
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2003-10-09
01:41 ---
Does this still happen with lastest compilers?
--- You are receiving this mail beca
LAST_UPDATED: Sun Oct 5 17:32:22 UTC 2003
Native configuration is arm-unknown-linux-gnu
=== libjava tests ===
Running target unix
FAIL: calls run
FAIL: cxxtest run
FAIL: field run
FAIL: final_method run
FAIL: findclass run
FAIL: invoke run
FAIL: martin run
FAIL: noclass run
FAI
PLEASE REPLY TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ONLY, *NOT* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11522
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2003-10-08
15:12 ---
Just a note that the bug which had been marked as dup of this one which dealt
with STRING
Unless I'm totally misreading the bug, the problem is gcc needs to
conflict with g++ versions that are incompatable with it. Shouldn't
this be reopened and reassigned to gcc?
--
Blars Blarson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.blars.org/blars.html
With
PLEASE REPLY TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ONLY, *NOT* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11522
--- Additional Comments From arobb at mva dot co dot uk 2003-10-08 08:20
---
I do not understand what this has to do with STRING(K:K) not being recognized
as a single cha
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> reassign 214692 g++-3.3
Bug#214692: libc6-dev: stdlib.h internal #includes broken/point to
moved/non-existent headers
Bug reassigned from package `libc6-dev' to `g++-3.3'.
> reassign 214694 g++-3.3
Bug#214694: Newest gcc-3.3 can't find any packaged co
xiphmont writes:
> ...is there any way to cause a gcc 3.3.2 upgrade to force a g++ 3.3.2
> upgrade as well (but only if g++ 3.3 is installed) as that is what
> actually bit me? (ie, upgrading gcc did not upgrade g++, and thus g++ broke)
g++-3.3 depends on gcc-3.3 (>= 1:3.3.2), so apt-get should al
reassign 214692 g++-3.3
reassign 214694 g++-3.3
severity 214692 normal
severity 214694 normal
merge 214692 214694
retitle 214694 g++-3.3 (3.3.2) should depend on gcc-3.3 (>= 3.3.2)
thanks
xiphmont writes:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 08, 2003 at 07:09:19AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > tags 214694 +
On Wed, Oct 08, 2003 at 07:50:38AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> reassign 214692 g++-3.3
> reassign 214694 g++-3.3
> severity 214692 normal
> severity 214694 normal
> merge 214692 214694
> retitle 214694 g++-3.3 (3.3.2) should depend on gcc-3.3 (>= 3.3.2)
> thanks
...is there any way to cause
On Wed, Oct 08, 2003 at 01:29:03AM -0400, xiphmont wrote:
> I have more information to offer; it appears to be a version skew
> problem. Updating only gcc-3.3 and not g++-3.3 is what triggered the
> problem (g++ was expecting includes in the old location, gcc had
> removed/moved them). I'd have t
On Wed, Oct 08, 2003 at 07:09:19AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> tags 214694 + unreproducible
> thanks
>
> unable to reproduce. what is the contents of confdefs.h?
I have more information to offer; it appears to be a version skew
problem. Updating only gcc-3.3 and not g++-3.3 is what trigger
tags 214694 + unreproducible
thanks
unable to reproduce. what is the contents of confdefs.h?
xiphmont writes:
> Package: gcc-3.3
> Version: 1:3.3.2-0pre5
> Severity: grave
> Tags: sid
> Justification: renders package unusable
>
> I apologize for originally filing this against libc6-dev; I see
>
14 matches
Mail list logo