> There isn't a lot of info in #342545. However, I suspect from the
> following comment
>
> > It would be nice if somebody fluent with hppa assembly can tell us if
>
> > fldw -10(,sp),fr23
>
> that this is the same bug as reported here:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20754
> On Sat, Jan 07, 2006 at 01:05:11AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > Grant, thank you for your work to date on this bug. (BTW, it would be
> > helpful if you would follow up to bug #342545 on libgcc2, instead of bug
> > #341675 which is filed against just one of the many packages affected by
> >
--- Comment #3 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-07 18:14 ---
Subject: Bug 24940
Author: jakub
Date: Sat Jan 7 18:14:24 2006
New Revision: 109453
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=109453
Log:
PR libgcj/24940
* shlibpath.m4: Replace $SED with
--- Comment #2 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-07 18:13 ---
Subject: Bug 24940
Author: jakub
Date: Sat Jan 7 18:13:36 2006
New Revision: 109452
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=109452
Log:
PR libgcj/24940
* shlibpath.m4: Replace $SED with
On Sat, Jan 07, 2006 at 01:05:11AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Grant, thank you for your work to date on this bug. (BTW, it would be
> helpful if you would follow up to bug #342545 on libgcc2, instead of bug
> #341675 which is filed against just one of the many packages affected by
> it).
Stev
Nathanael Nerode writes:
> Matthias Klose wrote:
> >anyway, I'll wait until Debian's position on the GFDL is documented
> >somewhere and then address all these together.
> It's pretty well documented by now. So is it time? :-P
>
> I'm sorry I haven't had the time or mental focus to write replacem
Matthias Klose wrote:
>anyway, I'll wait until Debian's position on the GFDL is documented
>somewhere and then address all these together.
It's pretty well documented by now. So is it time? :-P
I'm sorry I haven't had the time or mental focus to write replacement
manpages, but the {cpp, gcc, g++
gcc-4.1_4.1ds6-0exp6_i386.changes uploaded successfully to localhost
along with the files:
gcc-4.1-base_4.1-0exp6_i386.deb
libgcc1_4.1-0exp6_i386.deb
lib64gcc1_4.1-0exp6_i386.deb
cpp-4.1_4.1-0exp6_i386.deb
protoize_4.1-0exp6_i386.deb
fixincludes_4.1-0exp6_i386.deb
libmudflap0_4.1-0exp
There are disparities between your recently accepted upload and the
override file for the following file(s):
gcc-4.1-base_4.1-0exp6_powerpc.deb: package says section is libs, override says
devel.
Either the package or the override file is incorrect. If you think
the override is correct and the
gcc-4.1_4.1ds6-0exp6_powerpc.changes uploaded successfully to localhost
along with the files:
gcc-4.1_4.1ds6-0exp6.dsc
gcc-4.1_4.1ds6.orig.tar.gz
gcc-4.1_4.1ds6-0exp6.diff.gz
gcc-4.1-source_4.1-0exp6_all.deb
cpp-4.1-doc_4.1-0exp6_all.deb
libgcj7-jar_4.1-0exp6_all.deb
libgcj-common_4.1
Grant, thank you for your work to date on this bug. (BTW, it would be
helpful if you would follow up to bug #342545 on libgcc2, instead of bug
#341675 which is filed against just one of the many packages affected by
it).
Unfortunately, it doesn't seem from the bug log as though much progress is
b
11 matches
Mail list logo
