Bug#289045: gcc-3.3: gcc packages do not use the alternative system

On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 23:38:08 +0100 "Falk Hueffner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > It is possible to have various versions of gcc&co installed, > > though none of the packages use the alternative system but > > a couple of unrelated symlinks in /usr/bin. > > Thus, these symlinks get overwritten o

Bug#289045: gcc-3.3: gcc packages do not use the alternative system

Attila Kinali <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb am 07.01.05 09:27:43: > On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 23:38:08 +0100 > "Falk Hueffner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > It is possible to have various versions of gcc&co installed, > > > though none of the packages use the alternative system but > > > a couple of

Bug#289045: gcc-3.3: gcc packages do not use the alternative system

Attila Kinali <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb am 07.01.05 09:50:40: > On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 09:35:55 +0100 > "Falk Hueffner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Attila Kinali <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb am 07.01.05 09:27:43: > > > Ok, what is then the reason to allow multiple versions of > > > gcc if i'm not

Bug#289045: gcc-3.3: gcc packages do not use the alternative system

On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 09:35:55 +0100 "Falk Hueffner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Attila Kinali <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb am 07.01.05 09:27:43: > > > On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 23:38:08 +0100 > > "Falk Hueffner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Symlinks in /usr/bin belong to dpkg; you have no business c

Bug#289045: gcc-3.3: gcc packages do not use the alternative system

On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 09:56:04 +0100 "Falk Hueffner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Sorry, how am i supposed to change the default compiler if i'm not > > allowed to change the symlinks ? No, changing $PATH doesn't work as all > > gcc binaries are installed in /usr/bin. > > ln -s /usr/bin/gcc-3.4 /

Bug#289045: gcc-3.3: gcc packages do not use the alternative system

Attila Kinali wrote: > On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 09:56:04 +0100 > "Falk Hueffner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Sorry, how am i supposed to change the default compiler if i'm not > > > allowed to change the symlinks ? No, changing $PATH doesn't work as all > > > gcc binaries are installed in /usr/b

Bug#289045: gcc-3.3: gcc packages do not use the alternative system

On Fri, 7 Jan 2005 14:15:38 +0100 Thiemo Seufer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Attila Kinali wrote: > > On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 09:56:04 +0100 > > "Falk Hueffner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > ln -s /usr/bin/gcc-3.4 /usr/local/bin/gcc > > > > LOL, this is a joke ? Right ? > > No. I still consider

Bug#277206: gcc-3.3: internal error (segfault) while compiling Linux 2.6.9

can you still reproduce this? If so, can you provide the preprocessed source, as generated when adding -save-temps to the flags? Yes, it's still present in 1:3.3.5-5. For users of non-free BK: the source tree can be acquired by pulling Linus's tree and exporting this specific snapshot: bk export -

Processed: Re: Bug#277206: gcc-3.3: internal error (segfault) while compiling Linux 2.6.9

Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > merge 242916 277206 Bug#242916: [fixed in 3.4] ICE on invalid #define with -traditional Bug#277206: gcc-3.3: internal error (segfault) while compiling Linux 2.6.9 Merged 242916 277206. > thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need a

Bug#277206: gcc-3.3: internal error (segfault) while compiling Linux 2.6.9

merge 242916 277206 thanks Meelis Roos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb am 07.01.05 16:45:19: > I tracked it down to a vsyscall.S file containing only the line > > #define __builtin_warning(x, ...) (1) > > and compiling it with > gcc -traditional -o vsyscall.s vsyscall.S > causes the segfault. Ah,

Bug#288817: apt-get and aptitude segfault on hppa

On Fri, Jan 07, 2005 at 08:56:04AM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote: > hmm, the network card of my A500 is currently broken :-( Lamont, > please could you check, if you can reproduce this? Dann, does > recompiling apt fix the problem? I re-upgrade the box, which has been up for 45 days & hasn't had any

Bug#187564: [Bug rtl-optimization/10692] [3.3/3.4/4.0 regression] [m68k] miscompilation of perl with -O2 -fPIC

--- Additional Comments From debian-gcc at lists dot debian dot org 2005-01-07 21:36 --- [tried to reopen the report, but didn't succeed, and You tried to change the Versions this fails on field from 3.3.3 3.4.0 4.0.0 to 3.3.3 3.4.0] The patch applies to the 3.3 branch as well and fixe

Bug#187564: [Bug rtl-optimization/10692] [3.3/3.4/4.0 regression] [m68k] miscompilation of perl with -O2 -fPIC

-- What|Removed |Added Known to fail|3.3.3 3.4.0 4.0.0 |3.3.3 3.4.0 Known to work||4.0.0 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id

Processed: tagging 288817

Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > # Automatically generated email from bts, devscripts version 2.8.5 > # no reasoning for the tag in the bug report > tags 288817 - sarge Bug#288817: apt-get and aptitude segfault on hppa Tags were: sarge Tags removed: sarge > End of message, stopping p

[Bug target/18987] [3.3/3.4/4.0 regression] [ia64] Extra '.restore sp' in tail call

--- Additional Comments From wilson at specifixinc dot com 2005-01-08 03:51 --- Subject: Re: [4.0 regression] [ia64] Extra '.restore sp' in tail call On Wed, 2004-12-22 at 14:47, debian-gcc at lists dot debian dot org wrote: > --- Additional Comments From debian-gcc at list

[Bug target/18987] [3.3/3.4/4.0 regression] [ia64] Extra '.restore sp' in tail call

--- Additional Comments From wilson at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-08 03:55 --- David's patch looks correct to me. We only need this on mainline, as the precursor patch (PR 13158) is only on mainline. I will do a build and test and then check it in if all goes well. -- Wha

[Bug target/18987] [3.3/3.4/4.0 regression] [ia64] Extra '.restore sp' in tail call

--- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2005-01-08 04:47 --- Subject: Re: [3.3/3.4/4.0 regression] [ia64] Extra '.restore sp' in tail call "wilson at specifixinc dot com" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | > according to http://bugs.debian.org/286840 (if that's the