John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Putting gcc-3.4 in there itself is not a big deal. Updating gcc such
> that "gcc", "g++", and friends call version 3.4 is a little different,
> especially for C++. We also can't necessarily call it good, since some
> packages may be hardcoded for specif
New unique offer! You can get 0% mor'tgage ra'te for
the first week of May only!
0% means ZER0. No percent at all!!! Can you
find the better offers?
Minimum info required. Up to $ 1,000,000 1oan
available.
0nly 8 days left!
Refi.nance or Buy a home of your dr.eam now!
uxiqs dmnsvoyd fhqkzr u
Mon, 10 May 2004 21:43:51 -0500
Sir or Madam,
Thank you for your mor.tgage applicat.ion we
received yesterday.
We are happy to confirm that your appli cation is accepted and you can
get only 3 % fixed ra te.
Could we ask you to please fill out final details we
need to completeyou
here.
We
Conn,
Govenment don't want me to sell
UndergroundCD !Check Your spouse and staff
Investigate Your Own CREDIT-HISTORY
hacking someone PC!
Disappear in your city
bannedcd2004
http://www.8009hosting.com/cd/
hotrod,things this professor.
John Goerzen writes:
> On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 10:41:02PM +0200, Frederik Schueler wrote:
> > I have some questions:
> >
> > 1. when does the gcc maintainer team plan to release 3.4 to unstable?
> >
> > 2. will gcc-3.4 be included in sarge?
>
> Highly doubtful.
why? I dont' see a problem to bui
North,?
75%off for all New Softwares.
WindowXP,Photoshop,Window2003...etcMore
http://www.livere.biz/OE017/?affiliate_id=233635&campaign_id=601
scale,what criminal? where.
Thanks a lot to Bill Allombert, the problem has been identified as a
missing /proc.
I don't know whether it's due to glibc or gcc, but either gcc or glibc
should have proper errorhandling and give a sane error, rather than just
segfaulting.
--Jeroen
--
Jeroen van Wolffelaar
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ht
On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 05:06:05PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * John Goerzen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 10:41:02PM +0200, Frederik Schueler wrote:
> > > 3. is pure64 going to be included in sarge?
> >
> > No.
>
> Honestly, I'm not entirely sure I agree with this, bu
* John Goerzen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 05:06:05PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > * John Goerzen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > > On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 10:41:02PM +0200, Frederik Schueler wrote:
> > > > 3. is pure64 going to be included in sarge?
> > >
> > > No.
> >
On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 03:48:05PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> >gcc-3.4 will become default after the release, why should we not already
> >build everything with gcc-3.4, since it produces faster code?
>
> I'm not sure that performance is itself a good enough rationale to
> justify breaki
* John Goerzen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 10:41:02PM +0200, Frederik Schueler wrote:
> > 3. is pure64 going to be included in sarge?
>
> No.
Honestly, I'm not entirely sure I agree with this, but it does seem
unlikely atm. ;)
Stephen
signature.asc
Description:
On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 10:41:02PM +0200, Frederik Schueler wrote:
> I have some questions:
>
> 1. when does the gcc maintainer team plan to release 3.4 to unstable?
>
> 2. will gcc-3.4 be included in sarge?
Highly doubtful.
> 3. is pure64 going to be included in sarge?
No.
>gcc-3.4 will
Putting gcc-3.4 in there itself is not a big deal. Updating gcc such
that "gcc", "g++", and friends call version 3.4 is a little different,
especially for C++. We also can't necessarily call it good, since some
packages may be hardcoded for specific versions of gcc.
-- John
On Mon, May 10, 2004
On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 04:17:58PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> As I understand it, from the amd64 side we really don't want to get
> ahead of unstable because it makes things much more difficult later to
> get things into the archive if we actually get space on the mirrors...
> I'm not 100% sure
* Kurt Roeckx ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> I've uploaded a new version of gcc-3.4 to alioth. It's currently
> still in experimental.
>
> Since gcc 3.4 includes much better support for amd64 than 3.3 we
> would like to see it go to unstable. Some people would like to
> see it in unstable on aliot
Package: g++-3.3
Version: 1:3.3.3-7
Severity: serious
Justification: Causes other packages to FTBFS
With 1:3.3.3-6 (no bug) or -7 (bug):
# apt-get build-dep povray-3.5
$ apt-get source povray-3.5
$ cd povray-3.5-3.5.0c/src
$ i386-linux-g++ -DPREFIX=\"/usr\" \
-DPOV_LIB_DIR=\"/usr/share/p
I've uploaded a new version of gcc-3.4 to alioth. It's currently
still in experimental.
Since gcc 3.4 includes much better support for amd64 than 3.3 we
would like to see it go to unstable. Some people would like to
see it in unstable on alioth even if it's not yet put in
unstable.
What is stop
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-05-10
19:30 ---
*** Bug 15368 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
What|Removed |Added
Keen,*,
0nline Doct0rs!
up to 70% of the best pain killers out!
_Som@, vioxx, v-ia-gra, Fioriceet, Phentremine
and other popular meds..valium,[EMAIL PROTECTED],[EMAIL PROTECTED],/
http://www.8009hosting.com/mx1.htm
--
bilharziasis,the street that,invisible,semidarkness silently stood,behalf,o
One could implement gcj-x.y as a bash script that parses its
arguments, and optionally does
main_classes=$(jv-scan-x.y --print-main "[EMAIL PROTECTED]")
if [ 1 = $(echo "$main_classes" | wc -w) ]; then
gcj-x.y.real --main=$main_classes ...
else
echo "Multiple classes contain a \`main
Dyer,
Govenment don't want me to sell
UndergroundCD !Check Your spouse and staff
Investigate Your Own CREDIT-HISTORY
hacking someone PC!
Disappear in your city
bannedcd2004
http://www.8009hosting.com/cd/
taxiway,who still recently.
21 matches
Mail list logo
