[Bug rtl-optimization/34628] [4.2/4.3 Regression] problems with inlining on ARM

-- fang at csl dot cornell dot edu changed: What|Removed |Added CC||fang at csl dot cornell dot |

Re: gfortran-4.3 the default gfortran compiler, blas and lapack uploaded to unstable

Matthias Klose writes: > I did have a look at Camm's packages on p.d.o., fixed some obvious > things and uploaded those to unstable; Camm did change all package > names and the soname of all libraries, such that these packages do not > conflict with the existing packages in unstable, therefore the

[Bug middle-end/34150] ICE: output_operand: invalid expression as operand on hppa

--- Comment #8 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2008-01-21 00:27 --- Subject: Re: ICE: output_operand: invalid expression as operand on hppa > (gdb) p debug_rtx (insn) > (code_label/s 1897 4221 1898 13722 ("*.LJpc=819954") [0 uses]) We are losing usage counts in re

gfortran-4.3 the default gfortran compiler, blas and lapack uploaded to unstable

I did have a look at Camm's packages on p.d.o., fixed some obvious things and uploaded those to unstable; Camm did change all package names and the soname of all libraries, such that these packages do not conflict with the existing packages in unstable, therefore the decision to upload those to uns

Bug#461789: Confusing error about uninitialized values.

Package: g++-4.3 Version: 4.3-20080116-1 Severity: minor Obviously we want our compilers to be smart, but I think g++-4.3 is too smart for me. ;-) In the attached file, compiling with -Wall and -O2 produces a warning: foo.cc: In function ‘int main(int, char**)’: foo.cc:30: warning: ‘tmp.foo:

Bug#460244: marked as done ([m68k] Please switch build-dep from gcj-4.1)

Your message dated Sun, 20 Jan 2008 17:17:26 + with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#460244: fixed in java-gcj-compat 1.0.77-3 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 it

java-gcj-compat_1.0.77-3_i386.changes ACCEPTED

Accepted: java-gcj-compat-dev_1.0.77-3_i386.deb to pool/main/j/java-gcj-compat/java-gcj-compat-dev_1.0.77-3_i386.deb java-gcj-compat-plugin_1.0.77-3_i386.deb to pool/main/j/java-gcj-compat/java-gcj-compat-plugin_1.0.77-3_i386.deb java-gcj-compat_1.0.77-3.diff.gz to pool/main/j/java-gcj-compa

gcc-defaults_1.63_i386.changes ACCEPTED

Accepted: cpp_4.2.2-2_i386.deb to pool/main/g/gcc-defaults/cpp_4.2.2-2_i386.deb g++-multilib_4.2.2-2_i386.deb to pool/main/g/gcc-defaults/g++-multilib_4.2.2-2_i386.deb g++_4.2.2-2_i386.deb to pool/main/g/gcc-defaults/g++_4.2.2-2_i386.deb g77_3.4.6-32_i386.deb to pool/main/g/gcc-defaults/g7

gcc-defaults override disparity

There are disparities between your recently accepted upload and the override file for the following file(s): gfortran-multilib_4.3-1_i386.deb: package says priority is optional, override says standard. gobjc++-multilib_4.2.2-2_i386.deb: package says priority is optional, override says standard.

Processing of java-gcj-compat_1.0.77-3_i386.changes

java-gcj-compat_1.0.77-3_i386.changes uploaded successfully to localhost along with the files: java-gcj-compat_1.0.77-3.dsc java-gcj-compat_1.0.77-3.diff.gz java-gcj-compat-dev_1.0.77-3_i386.deb java-gcj-compat_1.0.77-3_i386.deb java-gcj-compat-plugin_1.0.77-3_i386.deb Greetings,

Processing of gcc-defaults_1.63_i386.changes

gcc-defaults_1.63_i386.changes uploaded successfully to localhost along with the files: gcc-defaults_1.63.dsc gcc-defaults_1.63.tar.gz cpp_4.2.2-2_i386.deb gcc_4.2.2-2_i386.deb gcc-multilib_4.2.2-2_i386.deb gnat_4.1.2-13_i386.deb gdc_4.1.2-13_i386.deb g++_4.2.2-2_i386.deb g++-mult

Bug#452792: marked as done ((no subject))

Your message dated Sun, 20 Jan 2008 17:49:03 +0100 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line No bug reports 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 it is now your responsibility to r

Bug#452791: marked as done ((no subject))

Your message dated Sun, 20 Jan 2008 17:49:03 +0100 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line No bug reports 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 it is now your responsibility to r

Bug#455407: pedwarnings no longer errors in GCC 4.3

user [EMAIL PROTECTED] usertag 455407 - ftbfs-gcc-4.3 retitle 455407 gcc warnings: #define redefined severity 455407 minor thanks I mentioned that GCC 4.3 converted a number of C++ warnings into errors. This change has now been reverted after a lot of discussion. I just compiled your package wit

Processed: pedwarnings no longer errors in GCC 4.3

Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > user [EMAIL PROTECTED] Setting user to [EMAIL PROTECTED] (was [EMAIL PROTECTED]). > usertag 455407 - ftbfs-gcc-4.3 Bug#455407: FTBFS with GCC 4.3: #define redefined Usertags were: ftbfs-gcc-4.3. Usertags are now: . > retitle 455407 gcc warnings: #define