Your message dated Sat, 17 May 2003 17:32:44 -0400
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#144602: fixed in gcc-3.3 1:3.3ds9-1
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
ity: important
(the same problem has also been seen on 1:2.95.3-5, but might be fixed
in the yet-unreleased g77 3.0)
g77 miscompiles PIC code on the armv4l-linux:
ii g772.95.2-13 The GNU Fortran 77 compiler.
ii gcc2.95.2-13 The GNU C compiler.
ii binu
ni-karlsruhe.de) [129.13.201.66] (postfix)
by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 1 (Debian))
id 16zwUk-0003yO-00; Tue, 23 Apr 2002 04:21:54 -0500
Received: by mvme66.ciw.uni-karlsruhe.de (Postfix, from userid 11025)
id 1955A97B43; Tue, 23 Apr 2002 11:21:52 +0200 (CEST)
Subject:
David Starner writes:
> Sorry, Matthias Klose seems to have taken down the GCC 3.1 packages.
> Still, it's not that hard to compile from source.
??? http://ftp-master.debian.org/~doko/gcc/
beware, CVS snapshots of the 3.1 branch ...
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject
On Tue, Apr 23, 2002 at 11:21:52AM +0200, Thomas Koenig wrote:
> Package: g77-3.0
> Version: 1:3.0.3-1
> Severity: wishlist
>
> Please apply the "large array" patch found at
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2001-10/msg01165.html so people can
> actually use humungous (u
Sorry, Matthias Klose seems to have taken down the GCC 3.1 packages.
Still, it's not that hard to compile from source.
--
David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"It's not a habit; it's cool; I feel alive.
If you don't have it you're on the other side."
- K's Choice (probably referring to the Interne
Package: g77-3.0
Version: 1:3.0.3-1
Severity: wishlist
Please apply the "large array" patch found at
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2001-10/msg01165.html so people can
actually use humungous (up to 2 GB) arrays with g77!
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of &q
tem <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: g77-3.0 fails to compute a complex log of certain values
X-Reportbug-Version: 1.36
X-Mailer: reportbug 1.36
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 16:49:08 +0100
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sender: Jaume Guasch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
X-BadReturnPath: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 2002-02-27 at 23:04, Matthias Klose wrote:
> No problem. I'll update the CVS this weekend. Please wait with the
> upload until the current version did move to testing (should be in
> three days).
Which current version are we talking about? According to
update-excuses:
* gcc-defaults (0.1
Philip Blundell writes:
> On Wed, 2002-02-27 at 19:27, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > Philip Blundell writes:
> > > On Wed, 2002-02-27 at 17:04, Adam C Powell IV wrote:
> > > > 3.0 fixes this problem, but then maintainers must hand-build using
> > > > g77-3.0
On Wed, 2002-02-27 at 19:27, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Philip Blundell writes:
> > On Wed, 2002-02-27 at 17:04, Adam C Powell IV wrote:
> > > 3.0 fixes this problem, but then maintainers must hand-build using
> > > g77-3.0, which is not a viable long-term solution. I k
Philip Blundell writes:
> On Wed, 2002-02-27 at 17:04, Adam C Powell IV wrote:
> > 3.0 fixes this problem, but then maintainers must hand-build using
> > g77-3.0, which is not a viable long-term solution. I know some arches
> > have 3.0 as their default compiler. So, what
On Wed, 2002-02-27 at 17:04, Adam C Powell IV wrote:
> 3.0 fixes this problem, but then maintainers must hand-build using
> g77-3.0, which is not a viable long-term solution. I know some arches
> have 3.0 as their default compiler. So, what are the criteria, and
> what's t
using
g77-3.0, which is not a viable long-term solution. I know some arches
have 3.0 as their default compiler. So, what are the criteria, and
what's the procedure, for changing the default g77 compiler on ARM from
2.95 to 3.0? Would we have to switch our C and C++ compilers as well,
or c
> I want leave the final decision to Randolph Tausq, which does (?) the
> ia64 parts in gcc.
It's always refreshing to get a new name ;-)
Matthias, please update gcc-defaults so that for ia64:
g77 stays the way it is (points to 2.96)
gobjc points to gobjc points to 3.0
Thanks!
randolph
--
Debia
Concern over unforeseen consequences, and the fact that there is
now in fact a newer g77-2.96 that works better, means that 2.96
will likely continue to be the default for ia64.
Objective C, on the other hand, no longer exists in 2.96 on ia64
at all.
--
John R. Daily
>
> Matthias, I understand that your input is particularly crucial in
> this matter. Any thoughts?
I want leave the final decision to Randolph Tausq, which does (?) the
ia64 parts in gcc.
> From: "John R. Daily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: debian-ia64@lists.debian.org
>
Package: g77-3.0
Version: 1:3.0.2-3
Severity: normal
g77-3.0 fails to compute a complex log of certain values
computing log(x), for certain complex values of x (e.g. x=(1.00390625,0.) )
the fortran program enters a loop (no error, no core ... ), does not
compute the value, and the program has
larly crucial in
this matter. Any thoughts?
--- Forwarded Message
From: "John R. Daily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: debian-ia64@lists.debian.org
Subject: g77-3.0 vs. -2.96
Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2001 16:42:48 -0500
Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
During the porting process, I have com
Hi.
I have installed the testing Debian distribution on my desktop. I have
also installed
g77-3.0 (Version 1:3.0-0pre010403) and I have tried to compile the
following program:
implicit double precision(a-h,o-z)
a=1.d0
b=sin(a)
write(6,*) b
stop
end
I have obtained this error
Hi.
I have installed the testing Debian distribution on my desktop. I have
also installed
g77-3.0 (Version 1:3.0-0pre010403) and I have tried to compile the
following program:
implicit double precision(a-h,o-z)
a=1.d0
b=sin(a)
write(6,*) b
stop
end
I have obtained this error
21 matches
Mail list logo
