Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> found 140201 gcc-3.0/3.0.ds6-0pre010525
Bug #140201 [libstdc++6] [PR libstdc++/21334] race condition in libstdc++3
(basic_string.tcc)
The source gcc-3.0 and version 3.0.ds6-0pre010525 do not appear to match any
binary packages
Marked as fo
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sun, 25 Sep 2005 19:08:30 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from pryzbyj by andromeda with local (Exim 4.52)
id 1EJfbg-CP-Ty
for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Sun, 25 Sep 2005 19:08:29 -0400
Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2005 19:08:28 -0400
To: Debian BTS Submission <[EMAIL PROT
Package: gcc-4.0
Version: 4.0.1-2
File: /usr/share/man/man1/gcc.1.gz
Severity: minor
The manpage section describing -fwrapv says:
This flag enables some optimizations and disables other.
Here, "other" should be pluaralized to "others".
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a su
>Submitter-Id: net
>Originator:Friedemann Buergel
>Organization: Weblaw AG, CH-3008 Bern, ++41-31-3805777, www.weblaw.ch
>Confidential: no
>Synopsis: Optimizer Bug in gcc 3.0, 3.3 and 3.4
>Severity: critical
>Priority: medium
>Category: c
&g
ada/13620: miscompilation of array initializer with
-O3 -fprofile-arcs. Closes: #226244.
- C:
+ PR c/6897: Code produced with -fPIC reserves EBX, but compiles
bad __asm__ anyway (closes: #73065).
+ PR c/9209: On i386, gcc-3.0 allows $ in indentifiers but not the
an))
id 168R0S-0005Lf-00; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 20:01:28 +0100
Received: (nullmailer pid 20561 invoked by uid 1001);
Mon, 26 Nov 2001 19:01:26 -
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 20:01:26 +0100
From: Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Debian Bug Tracking System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Have you been seeking Medi-cations?
You can get them here.
Your order will arrive the next day and you don't need to show a prescripti-on.
http://fillet.wewss.com
Julie detoxify. Richie pincushion putative harlem cooky holeable. Eloy waals
bestirring brown rotc. Freddie traverse turin. Reggie c
On Wed, 30 Jun 2004, Grant Grundler wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 29, 2004 at 08:11:46PM +0300, Martin-?ric Racine wrote:
> > Wasn't PALO (the bootloader) also build-dependant upon 3.0 at some point?
>
> Not really. It was a coincendence palo built with gcc 3.0 worked
> and pa
Package: ftp.debian.org
See http://lists.debian.org/debian-gcc/2004/06/msg00372.html
On Tue, Jun 29, 2004 at 08:11:46PM +0300, Martin-?ric Racine wrote:
> Wasn't PALO (the bootloader) also build-dependant upon 3.0 at some point?
Not really. It was a coincendence palo built with gcc 3.0 worked
and palo built with later gcc didn't. The bug was in palo and I'm
pret
On Mon, 28 Jun 2004, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Matthew Wilcox writes:
> > On Mon, Jun 28, 2004 at 07:08:36PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > > hppa is the only platform with gcc-3.0/g++-3.0. Is this version still
> > > needed for hppa builds, or can it be removed? On al
Matthew Wilcox writes:
> On Mon, Jun 28, 2004 at 07:08:36PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > hppa is the only platform with gcc-3.0/g++-3.0. Is this version still
> > needed for hppa builds, or can it be removed? On all other platforms,
> > we just build the libstdc++ runtime
On Mon, Jun 28, 2004 at 07:08:36PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> hppa is the only platform with gcc-3.0/g++-3.0. Is this version still
> needed for hppa builds, or can it be removed? On all other platforms,
> we just build the libstdc++ runtime library (but doesn't seem to be
>
hppa is the only platform with gcc-3.0/g++-3.0. Is this version still
needed for hppa builds, or can it be removed? On all other platforms,
we just build the libstdc++ runtime library (but doesn't seem to be
needed, I haven't seen third party software referencing this libstdc++
libra
Your message dated Wed, 5 May 2004 08:08:44 +0200
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#247344: gcc-3.0: internal compiler error - segmentation
fault
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt wi
Package: gcc-3.0
Version: 1:3.0.4-7
Severity: important
Tags: sid
This occurs during installation of Garnome version rc_2.6.1, in
directory
fifth-toe/xine-lib/work/main.d/xine-lib-1-rc3c/src/libffmpeg/libavcodec/
The error message is:
dsputil.c: In function `put_no_rnd_pixels16_y2_c':
dspu
Your message dated Tue, 13 Jan 2004 20:13:13 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#224608: gcc-3.0: Wrong build requirements
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 th
Package: gcc-3.0
Version: 1:3.0.4-7
Severity: normal
Current source package of gcc-3.0 (woody) does not build. It requires "dot"
contained
in non-free graphviz, but does not specify that.
pgpvzxGP0crmy.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> tags 212085 + upstream
Bug#212085: Build-dependencies cannot be satisfied in unstable
Tags were: wontfix
Tags added: upstream
> tags 212085 + sarge-ignore
Bug#212085: Build-dependencies cannot be satisfied in unstable
Tags were: upstream wontfix
Tags a
tags 212085 + upstream
tags 212085 + sarge-ignore
thanks
It's better to ship the runtime library only than the whole
compiler. libstdc++3 doesn't build with glibc-2.3, this won't be fixed
upstream in this compiler version.
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sun, 11 Nov 2001 01:40:51 +
Received: from laptop by plato.systems with local (Exim 3.32 #1 (Debian))
id 162jcB-0005nA-00
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sun, 11 Nov 2001 01:40:51 +
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: gcc-3.0: doesn't dep
00
From: Jochen Voss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Debian Bug Tracking System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: gcc-3.0: could gcc-3.0 be hooked into the alternatives system?
X-Reportbug-Version: 1.35
X-Mailer: reportbug 1.35
Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2001 15:05:14 +0100
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]&g
D]>
To: Debian Bug Tracking System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: gcc-3.0: Use 'update-alternatives' to set default compiler
X-Mailer: reportbug 1.50
Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 13:50:32 +0200
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Package: gcc-3.0
Version: 1:
(closes: #178596).
- sparc
+ gcc-3.2 regression (wrong code) (closes: #176387).
+ ICE in mem_loc_descriptor when optimizing (closes: #178909).
+ ICE in gen_reg_rtx when optimizing (closes: #178965).
+ Optimisation leads to unaligned access in memcpy (closes: #13
code) (closes: #176387).
+ ICE in mem_loc_descriptor when optimizing (closes: #178909).
+ ICE in gen_reg_rtx when optimizing (closes: #178965).
+ Optimisation leads to unaligned access in memcpy (closes: #136659).
.
* Closed reports reported against gcc-3.0 and fixed
+ ICE with -O -Wunreachable-code (closes: #189702).
- s390
+ Operand out of range at assembly time when using -O2
(closes: #178596).
- sparc
+ gcc-3.2 regression (wrong code) (closes: #176387).
+ ICE in mem_loc_descriptor when optimizing (closes:
oses: #176387).
+ ICE in mem_loc_descriptor when optimizing (closes: #178909).
+ ICE in gen_reg_rtx when optimizing (closes: #178965).
+ Optimisation leads to unaligned access in memcpy (closes: #136659).
.
* Closed reports reported against gcc-3.0 and fixed in gcc-3.
+ gcc-3.2 regression (wrong code) (closes: #176387).
+ ICE in mem_loc_descriptor when optimizing (closes: #178909).
+ ICE in gen_reg_rtx when optimizing (closes: #178965).
+ Optimisation leads to unaligned access in memcpy (closes: #136659).
.
* Closed re
+ ICE in mem_loc_descriptor when optimizing (closes: #178909).
+ ICE in gen_reg_rtx when optimizing (closes: #178965).
+ Optimisation leads to unaligned access in memcpy (closes: #136659).
.
* Closed reports reported against gcc-3.0 and fixed in gcc-3.2.x:
- General:
php3 (closes: #186299).
+ ICE with -O -Wunreachable-code (closes: #189702).
- s390
+ Operand out of range at assembly time when using -O2
(closes: #178596).
- sparc
+ gcc-3.2 regression (wrong code) (closes: #176387).
+ ICE in mem_loc_descri
bly time when using -O2
(closes: #178596).
- sparc
+ gcc-3.2 regression (wrong code) (closes: #176387).
+ ICE in mem_loc_descriptor when optimizing (closes: #178909).
+ ICE in gen_reg_rtx when optimizing (closes: #178965).
+ Optimisation leads to unal
87).
+ ICE in mem_loc_descriptor when optimizing (closes: #178909).
+ ICE in gen_reg_rtx when optimizing (closes: #178965).
+ Optimisation leads to unaligned access in memcpy (closes: #136659).
.
* Closed reports reported against gcc-3.0 and fixed in gcc-3.2.x:
-
-O2
(closes: #178596).
- sparc
+ gcc-3.2 regression (wrong code) (closes: #176387).
+ ICE in mem_loc_descriptor when optimizing (closes: #178909).
+ ICE in gen_reg_rtx when optimizing (closes: #178965).
+ Optimisation leads to unalign
i
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2003 12:24:38 +0100
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: held back gcc-3.0 from testing until gcc (>= 3:3.2) hits testing
X-Mailer: VM 7.03 under 21.4 (patch 6) "Common Lisp" XEmacs Lucid
Delivered-To:
Your message dated Mon, 13 Jan 2003 09:21:42 -0800
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#176533: gcc-3.0 not buildable, wrong build-dep
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 n
Package: gcc-3.0
Version: 1:3.0.4-13
Severity: normal
gcc 3.0 is not buildable, because it depends on libc6.1-dev, which does
not exist in the archive - it should depend on libc6-dev, or am i wrong?
-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
Architecture: i386
Kernel: Linux
Your message dated Sat, 11 Jan 2003 12:30:57 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line closing FTBFS reports for gcc-3.0
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 no
Your message dated Sat, 11 Jan 2003 12:30:57 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line closing FTBFS reports for gcc-3.0
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 no
.32 #1
(Debian))
id 16Ikhr-0004BP-00; Mon, 24 Dec 2001 22:04:55 -0800
From: Agthorr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Debian Bug Tracking System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: gcc-3.0: Improper warning when casting from pointer to non-const array
to const
X-Reportbug-Version: 1.36
X-Mailer: reportbug
Package: gcc-3.0
Severity: serious
Version: 1:3.0.4ds3-14
This version builds the libstdc++ runtime only (and for hppa the C
compiler). Held it back, until the gcc-3.2 transition hits testing.
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> reassign 94701 gcc-3.2
Bug#94701: [fixed in 3.3] Duplicate loop conditions even with -Os
Bug reassigned from package `gcc-3.0' to `gcc-3.2'.
> reassign 95318 gcc-3.2
Bug#95318: [fixed on 3.3/HEAD: PR optimization/2962] unnecessary cwt
Your message dated Sat, 11 Jan 2003 04:32:42 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#105741: fixed in gcc-3.0 1:3.0.4ds3-14
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
There are disparities between your recently accepted upload and the
override file for the following file(s):
gcc-3.0-base_3.0.4-14_i386.deb: priority is overridden from oldlibs to standard.
Either the package or the override file is incorrect. If you think
the override is correct and the
Whoops, forgot to Cc this to the bug report...
Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Daniel Schepler writes:
> > Package: gcc-3.0
> > Version: 3.0.4ds3-13
> > Severity: serious
> >
> > When I try to build gcc-3.0 on unstable, first there are bison
ST)
From: Gabor Lenart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: gcc-3.0: compiled code with gcc 3.0 is slow and big :-(
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Mailer: bug 3.3.9
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 11:08:29 +0200 (CEST)
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Package: gcc-3.0
Version: 1:3
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> retitle 150232 [fixed in gcc-3.1] Odd number in mke2fs output on HPPA
Bug#150232: e2fsprogs: Odd number in mke2fs output on HPPA
Changed Bug title.
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Debian bug tracking syste
Your message dated Fri, 27 Dec 2002 18:03:04 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#121668: gcc-3.0: Internal compiler error on IA64
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 n
Package: gcc-3.0
Version: 3.0.4ds3-13
Severity: serious
gcc-3.0 fails to build from source on i386, when doing a rebuild inside chroot.
I am filing this bug to notify you that I failed to build your
package from source in the current sid distribution.
It is a serious problem that your source
Package: gcc-3.0
Version: 3.0.4ds3-13
Severity: serious
When I try to build gcc-3.0 on unstable, first there are bison errors
in java-parse.y. If I fix those, then I get more errors:
...
/tmp/buildd/gcc-3.0-3.0.4ds3/build/gcc/xgcc
-B/tmp/buildd/gcc-3.0-3.0.4ds3/build/gcc/ -nostdinc++
-L/tmp
On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 11:28:47PM -0400, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 11:55:27AM +0300, Alexei Khlebnikov wrote:
> > > I think this program should not terminate at all because i will
> > > always be one greater than oldi.
> > > I think gcc3.0 has a problem with no optimization
> >
> > Changed my mind. After a posting from Linus on dri-devel and a discussion
> > about integer overflow (undefined) in C the following came out:
>
> Is integer overflow behaviour really undefined? If yes (I want it to be yes
> :),
> then, of course, it's the programmer's fault, not the compil
> On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 11:55:27AM +0300, Alexei Khlebnikov wrote:
> > > I think this program should not terminate at all because i will
> > > always be one greater than oldi.
> > > I think gcc3.0 has a problem with no optimization then but since
> > > there is later version that works gcc 3.1.1,
ong.
gcc-2.9 optimizes it away:
080483c0 :
80483c0: 55 push %ebp
80483c1: 89 e5 mov%esp,%ebp
80483c3: eb fe jmp80483c3
80483c5: 90 nop
...
gcc-3.0 and 3.1 optimize it away:
08048304 :
8
> >
> > With no optimization the program runs correctly by the rules of integers
> > representation in memory. See the explanation below.
> >
>
> I must have been asleep last night :} Thanks Alexei!
>
> gcc-3.1 generates similar code, don't have 3.2 on an i386 box
> to test. Though 3.2 on an hp
On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 11:55:27AM +0300, Alexei Khlebnikov wrote:
> > I think this program should not terminate at all because i will
> > always be one greater than oldi.
> > I think gcc3.0 has a problem with no optimization then but since
> > there is later version that works gcc 3.1.1, upgrade.
> I think this program should not terminate at all because i will
> always be one greater than oldi.
> I think gcc3.0 has a problem with no optimization then but since
> there is later version that works gcc 3.1.1, upgrade.
With no optimization the program runs correctly by the rules of integers
r
return oldi;
}
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ gcc-3.0 -O0 -o test test.c
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ ./test
(Attach gdb, look at stuff, it's not stopping) ^C
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ gcc-3.0 -o test test.c
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ ./test
(Attach gdb, look at stuff, it's not stopping) ^
I think this program should not terminate at all because i will
always be one greater than oldi.
I think gcc3.0 has a problem with no optimization then but since
there is later version that works gcc 3.1.1, upgrade.
Thanks,
Andrew Pinski
trace
ioldi
00
10check here
11
21
>Submitter-Id: net
>Originator:Thomas Deselaers
>Organization:
>Confidential: no
>Synopsis: gcc-3.0 optimization bug on debian GNU/Linux on x86 with very simple
>program
>Severity: non-critical
>Priority: medium
>Category: c
>Class: wrong-c
Your message dated Sat, 20 Jul 2002 14:02:26 -0400
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#152601: fixed in gcc-3.0 1:3.0.4ds3-11
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
Your message dated Sat, 20 Jul 2002 14:02:26 -0400
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#149037: fixed in gcc-3.0 1:3.0.4ds3-11
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
Moin,
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ dpkg -S
/usr/lib/gcc-lib/hppa-linux/3.0.4/libgcc_s.so
gcc-3.0: /usr/lib/gcc-lib/hppa-linux/3.0.4/libgcc_s.so
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ dpkg -L libgcc1
/.
/usr
/usr/share
/usr/share/doc
/usr/share/doc/libgcc1
/usr/share/doc/libgcc1/copyright
/usr/share/doc/libgcc1
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Package: gcc-3.0
> Version: 1:3.0.4-7
> Severity: normal
>
> AIDE reported this dead symlink:
>
> lrwxrwxrwx1 root root 18 Jul 5 20:16
> /usr/lib/gcc-lib/hppa-linux/3.0.4/libgcc_s.so -> /lib/libgcc_s.so.1
>
could yo
Package: gcc-3.0
Version: 1:3.0.4-7
Severity: normal
AIDE reported this dead symlink:
lrwxrwxrwx1 root root 18 Jul 5 20:16
/usr/lib/gcc-lib/hppa-linux/3.0.4/libgcc_s.so -> /lib/libgcc_s.so.1
Regards
Herbert.
-- System Information
Debian Release: 3.0
Ker
Package: gcc-3.0
Version: 1:3.0.4-7
Severity: important
When I try to compile C++ code with virtual inheritance and variable number of
argument method, the compilation fails with the following message :
bugreport.cpp:35: generic thunk code fails for method `virtual void
Virt::p(const char
Package: g++-3.0
Version: 3.0.4-7
Severity: wishlist
/usr/share/doc/gcc-3.0-base/C++/README.C++ mentions a couple of
non-working URLs:
http://www.maths.warwick.ac.uk/cpp/pub/
http://www.sgi.com/Technology/STL/
ttfn/rjk
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> retitle 127802 [fixed in gcc-3.1] use of mktemp is dangerous
Bug#127802: gcc-3.0: use of mktemp is dangerous
Changed Bug title.
> tags 127802 + fixed
Bug#127802: [fixed in gcc-3.1] use of mktemp is dangerous
Tags added: fixed
> thanks
22:51:56 -
Received: (qmail 20231 invoked by uid 1000); 8 Jun 2001 22:51:52 -
Date: 8 Jun 2001 22:51:52 -
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: gcc-3.0: internal compiler error: unrecognized insn
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Mailer: bug 3.3.9
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PRO
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> retitle 140995 [fixed in gcc-3.1] -Wswitch (also part of -Wall) is broken
Bug#140995: gcc-3.0: -Wswitch (also part of -Wall) is broken
Changed Bug title.
> tags 140995 + fixed
Bug#140995: [fixed in gcc-3.1] -Wswitch (also part of -Wall) is broke
Dec 2001 16:26:52 +0100
From: José Luis González <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: gcc-3.0: Weird SegFault on exit()
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Mailer: bug 3.3.10
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sender: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Jos=E9_Luis_Gonz=E1lez_Gonz=E1lez?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 02 Dec
gt; Now only 1/3 slower. Still not good.
updated results for g++-3.1:
no opt -O2 -O3
-
gcc-2.95: real0m9.825s real0m4.322s real0m4.327s
user 0m8.840s user0m3.700s user0m3.690s
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> reassign 148015 gcc
Bug#148015: gcc-3.0: Use 'update-alternatives' to set default compiler
Bug reassigned from package `gcc-3.0' to `gcc'.
> tags 148015 + wontfix
Bug#148015: gcc-3.0: Use 'update-alternatives'
Package: gcc-3.0
Version: 1:3.0.4-9
Severity: wishlist
gcc-3.0 and gcc-3.1 install gcc-3.0 and gcc-3.1 in /usr/bin, while
gcc (ver 2.95) install /usr/bin/gcc. It would be more streamlined
to use /etc/alternatives to point to one of the compilers.
The same applies for manpages and other
Package: gcc-3.0
Version: 1:3.0.4-6
Followup-For: Bug #144858
That last patch probably isn't what you want. =) This patch resolves
both the bad link against libc6-dev, removes ffi (I need to resolve
this upstream), and enables libgc6. This fixes all current packaging
bugs for hurd-i386.
di
Synopsis: gcc 3.0 0526 fails to build on mips*-linux
State-Changed-From-To: feedback->closed
State-Changed-By: rth
State-Changed-When: Wed Apr 10 23:17:09 2002
State-Changed-Why:
.
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl?cmd=view%20audit-trail&database=gcc&pr=2987
--
To UNSUBSC
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 10:15:33PM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Synopsis: gcc 3.0 0526 fails to build on mips*-linux
>
> State-Changed-From-To: analyzed->feedback
> State-Changed-By: rth
> State-Changed-When: Tue Apr 9 15:15:32 2002
> State-Changed-Why:
> Some
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 08:09:22AM +0200, Martin Rasp wrote:
> Hi.
>
> When compiling QT3 & KDE3 under Debian Woody with gcc-3.0 and g++-3.0 KDE3
> crashes during startup. When compiling with gcc-2.95 and g++-2.95 it's
> working fine.
>
> Is it because the linked
Synopsis: gcc 3.0 0526 fails to build on mips*-linux
State-Changed-From-To: analyzed->feedback
State-Changed-By: rth
State-Changed-When: Tue Apr 9 15:15:32 2002
State-Changed-Why:
Something's screwy here with your setup. is
included by gcc/tsystem.h iff -Dinhibit_libc is not
Hi.
When compiling QT3 & KDE3 under Debian Woody with gcc-3.0 and g++-3.0 KDE3
crashes during startup. When compiling with gcc-2.95 and g++-2.95 it's working
fine.
Is it because the linked debian libraries are compilied with version 2.95? Or
is it a real problem in version 3.0 of g
Package: gcc-3.0
Version: 1:3.0.4-6
Severity: normal
The following program generates a superfluous warning when compiled
with -std=c99 or -std=gnu99.
#include
int main (void) __attribute__ ((noreturn));
int main (void
Package: gcc-3.0
Version: 1:3.0.4-6
Severity: normal
-Wswitch doesn't actually seem to do anything in gcc-3.0, although it
works in gcc 2.95.4. Here's what the documentation says it *should*
do:
`-Wswitch&
Package: gcc-3.0
Version: 1:3.0.4-6
Severity: normal
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/tmp$ gcc-2.95 -c foo.c
foo.c: In function `foo':
foo.c:6: field `d' has incomplete type
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/tmp$ gcc-3.0 -c foo.c
foo.c: In function `foo':
foo.c:8: Internal compiler error in incomplete_t
Your message dated Thu, 07 Mar 2002 04:32:23 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#135709: fixed in gcc-3.0 1:3.0.4ds3-2
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
Erich Schubert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> cum veritate scripsit:
> > Should we do a debconf item for this? I'm getting tired of seeing this
> > question pop up at least once every two weeks for months now...and I'm
> > sure I'm not alone :-)
>
> Maybe tag the bug "wontfix" and leave it open?
> I wouldn
> Should we do a debconf item for this? I'm getting tired of seeing this
> question pop up at least once every two weeks for months now...and I'm
> sure I'm not alone :-)
Maybe tag the bug "wontfix" and leave it open?
I wouldn't consider this bug as "fixed", but as "should not be fixed".
Actually
Your message dated Fri, 1 Mar 2002 16:47:29 -0500 (EST)
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#136351: gcc-3.0: missing alternatives?
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 th
On Fri, 1 Mar 2002, Erich Schubert wrote:
> Package: gcc-3.0
> Version: 1:3.0.4-1
> Severity: normal
>
> Shouldn't gcc-3.0 be an alternative for cc? maybe for gcc too?
>
> /usr/bin/cc is provided by gcc, but not by gcc-3.0 ?
The short answer is no, gcc is just packa
Package: gcc-3.0
Version: 1:3.0.4-1
Severity: normal
Shouldn't gcc-3.0 be an alternative for cc? maybe for gcc too?
/usr/bin/cc is provided by gcc, but not by gcc-3.0 ?
Greetings,
erich
-- System Information
Debian Release: 3.0
Architecture: i386
Kernel: Linux marvin.xmldesign.de 2.4.18
Package: gcc-3.0
Version: 1:3.0.4-1
Perhaps not an issue, but I thought I'd at least let you know.
| Unpacking replacement gcc-3.0 ...
| dpkg - warning, overriding problem because --force enabled:
| trying to overwrite `/lib/64/libgcc_s_64.so', which is also in package
libgc
Your message dated Thu, 14 Feb 2002 15:02:24 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#133433: fixed in gcc-3.0 1:3.0.4ds2-0pre020210
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 n
Package: gcc-3.0
Version: 1:3.0.4ds2-0pre020209
Severity: serious
gcc-3.0-base didn't get built by any of my buildds making new gcc-3.0
nicely uninstallable...
--
James
Your message dated Sun, 10 Feb 2002 15:00:55 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#130422: fixed in gcc-3.0 1:3.0.4ds2-0pre020209
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 n
... Adam Conrad
(Not a Debian developer, but opinionated nonetheless)
-Original Message-
From: Stuart T. R. Rowan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Stuart
Rowan
Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 7:39 AM
To: Junichi Uekawa
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Bug#119064: gcc-3.0: gcc should be a `
Stuart Rowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> cum veritate scripsit:
gcc is provided by gcc-defaults, not gcc-2.95
regards,
junichi
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] : Junichi Uekawa http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer
GPG Fingerprint : 17D6 120E 4455 1832 9423 7447 3059 BF92 CD37 56F4
Sorry there was an error in the previous message the reply to field is
wrong the reply-to was suppposed to be [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 2002-02-01 at 12:45, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
> "Stuart T.R.Rowan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> cum veritate scripsit:
>
> > gcc-3.0 shou
No it can't - it depends upon the gcc package. the only package which
supplies this dependency is gcc-2.95 hence the problem.
On Fri, 2002-02-01 at 12:45, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
> "Stuart T.R.Rowan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> cum veritate scripsit:
>
> > gcc-3.0 should
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> reassign 119064 gcc
Bug#119064: gcc-3.0: doesn't depend on gcc
Bug reassigned from package `gcc-3.0' to `gcc'.
> severity 119064 wishlist
Bug#119064: gcc-3.0: doesn't depend on gcc
Severity set to `wishlist'.
> tag
"Stuart T.R.Rowan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> cum veritate scripsit:
> gcc-3.0 should provide gcc, then pentium-builder for example would be able
> to be installed on a gcc-3.0 system and as the originarl reporter hinted at,
> its very annoying that /etc/alternatives et al don
Package: gcc-3.0
Version: 1:3.0.3-1
gcc-3.0 should provide gcc, then pentium-builder for example would be able
to be installed on a gcc-3.0 system and as the originarl reporter hinted at,
its very annoying that /etc/alternatives et al don't properly ask which gcc
you want as the system de
Your message dated Tue, 29 Jan 2002 15:03:53 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#128178: fixed in gcc-3.0 1:3.0.4ds0-0pre020127
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 n
1 - 100 of 360 matches
Mail list logo
