Hello
I wonder, if arm doesn't support ssp at all, as doko said, why should
it be disabled only when cross compiling?
Is there a specific reason or something ?
Thank you for your time, have a nice day.
Arthur.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Tro
#
# bts-link upstream status pull for source package gcc-4.1
# see http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2006/05/msg1.html
#
user [EMAIL PROTECTED]
# remote status report for #401496
# * http://gcc.gnu.org/PR31639
# * remote status changed: NEW -> RESOLVED
# * remote resolution cha
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> #
> # bts-link upstream status pull for source package gcc-4.1
> # see http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2006/05/msg1.html
> #
> user [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Setting user to [EMAIL PROTECTED] (was [EMAIL PROTECTED]).
> # remote status report f
#
# bts-link upstream status pull for source package gcj-4.1
# see http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2006/05/msg1.html
#
user [EMAIL PROTECTED]
# remote status report for #415109
# * http://gcc.gnu.org/PR32861
# * remote status changed: (?) -> UNCONFIRMED
usertags 415109 + statu
#
# bts-link upstream status pull for source package gcj-4.2
# see http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2006/05/msg1.html
#
user [EMAIL PROTECTED]
# remote status report for #399833
# * http://gcc.gnu.org/PR32863
# * remote status changed: (?) -> UNCONFIRMED
usertags 399833 + statu
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> #
> # bts-link upstream status pull for source package gcj-4.1
> # see http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2006/05/msg1.html
> #
> user [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Setting user to [EMAIL PROTECTED] (was [EMAIL PROTECTED]).
> # remote status report f
Hello,
I confirm, that Arthur patch works to build arm and armel toolchains.
I have been doing Arthur's approach within some patches that i apply.
Regards
2007/7/15, Arthur Loiret <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Package: gcc-4.2
> Version: 4.2-20070712
>
> Hello,
>
> In debian/rules.defs I read
>
> ifdef
--- Comment #2 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-07-25 22:40 ---
Subject: Re: New: [4.2/4.3 regression] compile time and memory regression
Points-to memory with these is almost nothing, so don't look at meef.
It looks like size goes up for each function and is not fully
recovere
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> forwarded 431608 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/PR32900
Bug#431608: g++-4.2: Abysmal performance compiling python-qt3
Noted your statement that Bug has been forwarded to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/PR32900.
> tag 431608 + upstream
Bug#431608: g++-4.2: Ab
Accepted:
gappletviewer-4.2_4.2.1-0_arm.deb
to pool/main/g/gcj-4.2/gappletviewer-4.2_4.2.1-0_arm.deb
gcj-4.2-base_4.2.1-0_arm.deb
to pool/main/g/gcj-4.2/gcj-4.2-base_4.2.1-0_arm.deb
gcj-4.2_4.2.1-0_arm.deb
to pool/main/g/gcj-4.2/gcj-4.2_4.2.1-0_arm.deb
gij-4.2_4.2.1-0_arm.deb
to pool/main/
gcj-4.2_4.2.1-0_arm.changes uploaded successfully to localhost
along with the files:
gcj-4.2-base_4.2.1-0_arm.deb
gcj-4.2_4.2.1-0_arm.deb
gij-4.2_4.2.1-0_arm.deb
libgcj8-0_4.2.1-0_arm.deb
libgcj8-0-awt_4.2.1-0_arm.deb
gappletviewer-4.2_4.2.1-0_arm.deb
libgcj8-dev_4.2.1-0_arm.deb
lib
--
Bug 30131 depends on bug 12535, which changed state.
Bug 12535 Summary: Attempt to delete prologue/epilogue insn
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12535
What|Old Value |New Value
-
Daniel Schepler writes:
> It looks like the original bug message didn't get forwarded to debian-gcc,
> possibly because it included a large preprocessed source file. So I'm
> sending this followup to call attention to the bug report.
>
> Briefly, g++-4.2 is taking over 20 minutes to compile a s
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> severity 434632 important
Bug#434632: [powerpc] generate broken 64-bit binaries
Severity set to `important' from `serious'
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administ
severity 434632 important
thanks
the workaround is to fall back to gcc-4.1, when building 64bit
binaries.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Package: gcc-4.2
Version: 4.2.1-1
Severity: important
Trying to build glibc 2.6 on alpha leads to a regression in
the test dlfcn/tst-dlinfo. This test segfaults when used with a glibc
built with gcc-4.2 whereas the same binaries works when used with a
glibc built with gcc-4.1.
-- System Informati
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> clone 434626 -1
Bug#434626: [powerpc] broken 64bit packages
Bug 434626 cloned as bug 434632.
> reassign -1 gcc-4.2
Bug#434632: [powerpc] broken 64bit packages
Bug reassigned from package `libc6-ppc64' to `gcc-4.2'.
> retitle -1 [powerpc] generate brok
Matthias Klose writes:
>
> there is no g++-4.2 in etch; just create a chroot and install sid into
> the chroot.
>
Thanks. Nothing changed. Still same problem.
I made my own investigation and made a small class which fixes the problem:
template >
class SockBuf : public std::basic_filebuf<_C
Your message dated Wed, 25 Jul 2007 12:00:16 +0200
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#433629: gcc-4.2: breaks linux kernel usbhid
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 i
> please recheck with gcc 4.2.1
Works fine. I also upgraded the kernel but in the changelog since my old
kernel can't find any changes that were made for gcc so I take it that
gcc did indeed have a bug that is now fixed.
johannes
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message pa
20 matches
Mail list logo
