Bug#812255: g++-6: ICE with -fsanitize=undefined -fcheck-pointer-bounds -mmpx

Package: g++-6 Version: 6-20160117-1 Severity: minor I was trying out the new -fcheck-pointer-bounds option (which requires -mmpx) and found that in combination with -fsanitize=undefined it causes an ICE: $ cat x.cc int * a; void f() { *a = 1; } $ g++-6 -fsanitize=undefined -fcheck-pointer-bounds

Bug#752733: g++-4.9: PR61214 breaks packages linking against wxWidgets

On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 11:33:24PM +1200, Olly Betts wrote: > On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 10:34:41AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote: > > Wondering if we can have a work-around in wxwidgets-3.0, building without > > -fvisibility-inlines-hidden, until this is fixed in gcc-4.9. This wa

Bug#752733: g++-4.9: PR61214 breaks packages linking against wxWidgets

On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 10:34:41AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote: > Wondering if we can have a work-around in wxwidgets-3.0, building without > -fvisibility-inlines-hidden, until this is fixed in gcc-4.9. This way we would > have to touch only one package. At least the upstream test case works with i

Bug#569571: [armel] gcc-4.4 generates non-aligned relocations

On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 03:41:33PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote: > > gcc-4.4 generates non-aligned relocations > > I doubt it. is there a reason why xapian-bindings doesn't use the > standard way of linking and provides all files directly, including the > compiler version? It just uses libtool fo

Bug#569571: affects apt-xapian-index as well

affects 569571 - src:xapian-core affects 569571 + python-xapian thanks On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 01:44:45PM +0200, Sascha Silbe wrote: > affects 569571 src:xapian-core apt-xapian-index > thanks This sounds like an issue which affected xapian-bindings (not xapian-core) in 1.0.18-1, but 1.0.19-1 work

Bug#296456: update of patch for #296456

On Thu, Sep 15, 2005 at 10:36:04PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote: > please could you send an updated patch? IIUC, then the patch has to be > updated. OK, new patch attached. Cheers, Olly --- gij-wrapper-3.4-old 2005-09-15 22:19:07.772964328 +0100 +++ gij-wrapper-3.4 2005-09-15 22:18:48.3539

Bug#296456: Acknowledgement (java wrapper script mishandles command line options with arguments)

I think there's a bug in my patch - on further reading it seems "-jar" just controls the interpretation of the first non-option argument rather than taking an argument itself... If that's the case, the test for -jar or -D* should remain unchanged. Cheers, Olly -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [

Bug#296456: java wrapper script mishandles command line options with arguments

Package: gij-3.4 Version: 3.4.3-9 Tags: patch The "java" wrapper script doesn't correctly handle command line options with arguments (e.g. -classpath and -jar) so it doesn't handle cases like this correctly: java -classpath myjavaclasses -Djava.library.path=myjni Foo Once it sees "myjavaclasses"