Package: g++-4.9
Version: 4.9.2-10
Severity: normal
This warning can be seen while compiling skaakii-1.0.0 on several
architectures (looks like it includes some 64bit archs, plus sparc).
It does not appear with g++-4.8.
https://qa.debian.org/bls/packages/s/sjaakii.html
http://buildd.debian.org/st
Package: gcc-4.9
Version: 4.9.1-14
Severity: normal
The gcc-4.9 source does not build libvtv any more but the deb still
suggests it. Binutils-gold is not a separate package any more.
-- System Information:
Debian Release: jessie/sid
APT prefers testing
APT policy: (990, 'testing'), (500, 'un
Package: gcc-4.8
Version: 4.8.3-11
Severity: normal
Those packages are apparently not part of Debian any more.
-- System Information:
Debian Release: jessie/sid
APT prefers testing
APT policy: (990, 'testing'), (500, 'unstable'), (500, 'stable'), (101,
'experimental')
Architecture: amd64 (x8
Package: gcc-4.7
Version: 4.7.4-2
Severity: normal
Some of those packages seem to have differnt version numbers now, it
is not clear whether the new versions would help. Some others are
just not in the archive anymore (mudflap).
-- System Information:
Debian Release: jessie/sid
APT prefers tes
[resend with bugs CC'd]
Hello,
Context:
http://bugs.debian.org/734318 - tulip: [amd64] segfaults inside dlopen when
loading plugins
http://bugs.debian.org/723982 - dlopen: segfaults right inside call_init
What we get here is a number of plugins that when dlopen'd cause an
obscure segfault insi
Hello,
Context:
http://bugs.debian.org/734318 - tulip: [amd64] segfaults inside dlopen when
loading plugins
http://bugs.debian.org/723982 - dlopen: segfaults right inside call_init
What we get here is a number of plugins that when dlopen'd cause an
obscure segfault inside libc code. Upstream (
Hi gij maintainers,
Since that error the bigloo "jvm tests" show only occurs during, well,
the "jvm tests", I am wondering if it could not be a gij 64bit issue.
For the background, the bigloo scheme compiler, among other target
runtime environements, can generate JVM bytecode, and it is the
tests
4.0.2-3Java runtime library for use with
ii libgcj6-dev 4.0.2-3Java development headers and stati
ii zlib1g1:1.2.3-6 compression library - runtime
Versions of packages gcj-4.0 recommends:
ii fastjar 1:4.0.2-3 Jar c
tem Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
APT prefers unstable
APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (500, 'stable'), (1, 'experimental')
Architecture: i386 (i586)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash
Kernel: Linux 2.4.27-k6
Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=français (charmap=ISO-
e? The current memtest package uses:
>
> gcc -c -Wall -march=i486 -Os -fomit-frame-pointer -fno-builtin -ffreestanding
> -fPIC reloc.c
Right, it is in memtest82 3.2, which I finally uploaded yesterday with
forced use of gcc-3.2. Arch is i386.
--
Yann Dirson<[EMAIL PROTE
ry: Shared libraries an
ii libgcc1 1:3.4.2-3GCC support library
-- no debconf information
--
Yann Dirson<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> |
Debian-related: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | Support Debian GNU/Linux:
| Freedom, Power
LD_TRACE_LOADED_OBJECTS=1
LD_WARN=yes LD_BIND_NOW=yes LD_VERBOSE= "$file"
Could that be a ld.so issue, maybe triggered by unexpected things in ELF
headers ?
On Fri, Jun 04, 2004 at 12:04:56AM +0200, Yann Dirson wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 01, 2004 at 11:34:36AM +0200, I wrote:
> > I&
-O1 and will try
to pinpoint the precise problem. Stay tuned.
--
Yann Dirson<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> |Why make M$-Bill richer & richer ?
Debian-related: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | Support Debian GNU/Linux:
Pro:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | Freedom, Power, Stability, Gratuity
http://ydirson.free.fr/| Check <http://www.debian.org/>
ugh -O2 allows it to build, the generated
code is bad.
I'll try to build at -O0, and then at -O1 if -O0 worked, and will let you
know. I should also have a closer look at how gcc-3.2 performs, but that
would be a pain to have to use it, since it's supposed to be phased out from
Debian.
antime you should
> definitively use GCC2.95. I will add a test in the Bigloo configuration
> process...
Do you know whether they have a problem-report and/or fix easily
available for application on our 3.3 ? The debian gcc maintainers may
be interested in applying the fix...
Regards,
-
least in Sun's implementation, SWING is based).
Regards,
--
Yann Dirson<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> |Why make M$-Bill richer & richer ?
Debian-related: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | Support Debian GNU/Linux:
Pro:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | Freedom, Power, Stability, Gr
1:3.3-2Java development headers and stati
ii zlib1g1:1.1.4-12 compression library - runtime
-- no debconf information
--
Yann Dirson<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> |Why make M$-Bill richer & richer ?
Debian-related: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | Suppo
On Mon, Oct 21, 2002 at 09:43:05PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Yann Dirson writes:
> > I have several packages (e2fsprogs, bigloo) that fail to build on
> > m68k, apparently due to one or more gcc bug(s). Maybe that's the same
> > as #146006, and #89023, bu
m68k, I'd rather not change those packages and
have the autobuilders use gcc-3.2 at least for m68k...
What about changing build-essential list to make gcc-3.2 the default
on m68k ?
--
Yann Dirson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.alcove.com/
Technical support manager
changes again ? That's a joke, right ? Well... the
website says the same, so I guess it's not... Sigh.
Regards,
--
Yann Dirson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.alcove.com/
Technical support managerResponsable de l'assistance technique
Senior Fr
Should
I remove the hack because g++ would also be g++-3.1 ?
What's silly about that is that gcc-3.1 only seems to be held out of
testing because an error in copyright file (and maybe because binutils
is held, which seems to come from an arm-specific patch not being
applicable any more)... Are th
--
Yann Dirson<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> |Why make M$-Bill richer & richer ?
Debian-related: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | Support Debian GNU/Linux:
Pro:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | Freedom, Power, Stability, Gratuity
http://ydirson.free.fr/| Check <http://
urned error exit status 2
Indeed, the \ was doubled:
--slave /usr/share/man/man1/java.1.gz java.1.gz
/usr/share/man/man1/gij-wrapper-3.0.1.gz \\
--
Yann Dirson<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> |Why make M$-Bill richer & richer ?
Debian-related: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | Support
th x86 asm,
and it was with the Intel syntax :(. I'm a bit at a loss... I'll
have to see that with upstream developpers.
Regards,
--
Yann Dirson<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> |Why make M$-Bill richer & richer ?
Debian-related: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | Support Debian GNU/Linux:
Pro:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | Freedom, Power, Stability, Gratuity
http://ydirson.free.fr/| Check <http://www.debian.org/>
ude libgc4 for building
> against, suggesting that vers 5 and 6 might not be recommended. Some
> input from upstream would be useful.
Yes, I'll contact them. Thanks for the hint.
Regards,
--
Yann Dirson<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> |Why make M$-Bill richer & richer ?
Debian-rel
25 matches
Mail list logo
