On Fri, Nov 03, 2006 at 07:37:33AM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > > no, only the upstream tarball is used from gcc-4.1-source. the
> > > patches are used from the gcj-4.1 source. The patches in
> > > gcc-4.1-source are needed to build cross compilers, based on
> > > gcc-4.1-source.
> > My point
Steve Langasek writes:
> On Thu, Nov 02, 2006 at 01:23:17PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > Steve Langasek writes:
> > > On Mon, Oct 23, 2006 at 01:18:35AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > > > Please consider moving the following packages to testing:
>
> > > > gcj-4.1
>
> > > I'm wonderi
On Thu, Nov 02, 2006 at 01:23:17PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Steve Langasek writes:
> > On Mon, Oct 23, 2006 at 01:18:35AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > > Please consider moving the following packages to testing:
> > > gcj-4.1
> > I'm wondering whether the build-dependencies of gcj-4.1
On Thu, Nov 02, 2006 at 01:11:24PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Steve Langasek writes:
> > so in the absence of any movement in this area, I still need to
> > know what Debian is going to do with gcj on ARM for the upcoming etch
> > release.
> in the worst case, remove the binaries built from gc
Accepted:
cpp-4.1_4.1.1-19_hurd-i386.deb
to pool/main/g/gcc-4.1/cpp-4.1_4.1.1-19_hurd-i386.deb
fastjar_4.1.1-19_hurd-i386.deb
to pool/main/g/gcc-4.1/fastjar_4.1.1-19_hurd-i386.deb
fixincludes_4.1.1-19_hurd-i386.deb
to pool/main/g/gcc-4.1/fixincludes_4.1.1-19_hurd-i386.deb
g++-4.1_4.1.1-19_hu
gcc-4.1_4.1.1ds2-19_hurd-i386.changes uploaded successfully to localhost
along with the files:
gcc-4.1-base_4.1.1-19_hurd-i386.deb
libgcc1_4.1.1-19_hurd-i386.deb
cpp-4.1_4.1.1-19_hurd-i386.deb
protoize_4.1.1-19_hurd-i386.deb
fixincludes_4.1.1-19_hurd-i386.deb
libmudflap0_4.1.1-19_hurd-i
On Saturday 19 August 2006 07:03, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Dirk Eddelbuettel writes:
> > On 18 August 2006 at 00:58, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> > | * John Schmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-08-17 13:46]:
> > | > Is there a way for me to instrument my code/system, etc to indicate
> > | > where the big
--- Comment #8 from rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-02 20:57 ---
Subject: Bug 27891
Author: rakdver
Date: Thu Nov 2 20:57:35 2006
New Revision: 118430
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=118430
Log:
PR tree-optimization/27891
* tree-ssa-loop-iv
--- Comment #7 from rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-02 19:18 ---
Subject: Bug 27891
Author: rakdver
Date: Thu Nov 2 19:18:25 2006
New Revision: 118423
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=118423
Log:
PR tree-optimization/27891
* tree-ssa-loop-iv
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> found 392735 1.0.65-8
Bug#392735: java-gcj-compat: dangling symlinks in
/usr/lib/jvm/java-1.4.2-gcj-4.1-1.4.2.0/man/man1
Bug marked as found in version 1.0.65-8.
> --
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Debian bug tra
On Wed, Nov 01, 2006 at 06:10:57PM +0100, Marc-Jano Knopp wrote:
>libgcj-common installs a symlink from /usr/share/doc/libgcj-common to
>/usr/share/doc/gcj-4.1-base, which makes checksums mismatch:
Looking at the current packages, it doesn't appear that either
libgcj-common or gcj-4.1-base include
Steve Langasek writes:
> Hi Matthias,
>
> On Sun, Oct 29, 2006 at 02:20:39PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > gcc-4.1 4.1.1-19 in unstable now looks like not showing build time
> > regressions compared to 4.1.1-13 in testing, validated on amd64.
> > Lucas Nussbaum volunteered to build testing from
Steve Langasek writes:
> On Mon, Oct 23, 2006 at 01:18:35AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > Please consider moving the following packages to testing:
>
> > gcj-4.1
>
> I'm wondering whether the build-dependencies of gcj-4.1 are really accurate.
> Is it really the case that gcj-4.1 will buil
Steve Langasek writes:
> so in the absence of any movement in this area, I still need to
> know what Debian is going to do with gcj on ARM for the upcoming etch
> release.
in the worst case, remove the binaries built from gcj-4.1,
ecj-bootstrap-gcj. How many build-dependencies will be broken? Did
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> reassign 396583 debsums
Bug#396583: libgcj-common: Link to gcj-4.1-base makes checksums mismatch
Bug reassigned from package `libgcj-common' to `debsums'.
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Debian bug trackin
reassign 396583 debsums
thanks
Marc-Jano Knopp writes:
> Package: libgcj-common
> Version: 1:4.1.1-19
> Severity: minor
>
> libgcj-common installs a symlink from /usr/share/doc/libgcj-common to
> /usr/share/doc/gcj-4.1-base, which makes checksums mismatch:
>
> # aptitude reinstall libgcj-commo
Andrew Haley writes:
> Steve Langasek writes:
> > On Mon, Oct 23, 2006 at 01:18:35AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > > Please consider moving the following packages to testing:
> >
> > > - arm: debian only port, not yet submitted to upstream; runtime is
> > >currently non-functional, te
On Wed, Nov 01, 2006 at 09:53:37AM +, Andrew Haley wrote:
> > > Going back to gcj-4.0 for arm could be an alternative, at least simple
> > > programs did compile to native code and run sucessfully. The testsuite
> > > in 4.0 shows over 100 test failures, in 4.1 over 700. Reverting back
> >
--- Comment #5 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-02 07:44
---
The combiner drops a REG_DEAD note without updating liveness info.
--
ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
19 matches
Mail list logo
