gcc-4.0_4.0.1-1_i386.changes ACCEPTED

Accepted: cpp-4.0-doc_4.0.1-1_all.deb to pool/main/g/gcc-4.0/cpp-4.0-doc_4.0.1-1_all.deb cpp-4.0_4.0.1-1_i386.deb to pool/main/g/gcc-4.0/cpp-4.0_4.0.1-1_i386.deb fastjar_4.0.1-1_i386.deb to pool/main/g/gcc-4.0/fastjar_4.0.1-1_i386.deb fixincludes_4.0.1-1_i386.deb to pool/main/g/gcc-4.0/fix

Bug#301983: marked as done ([fixed in 4.0] Unaligned accesses with ?-operator)

Your message dated Sun, 10 Jul 2005 13:47:40 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#301983: fixed in gcc-4.0 4.0.1-1 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 yo

Bug#298508: marked as done ([fixed in 4.0] [arm] gcc-3.3 and 3.4 cannot compile glibc 2.3.4)

Your message dated Sun, 10 Jul 2005 13:47:40 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#298508: fixed in gcc-4.0 4.0.1-1 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 yo

Bug#298263: marked as done ([fixed in 4.0] libgcj.a contains repeated archive members)

Your message dated Sun, 10 Jul 2005 13:47:40 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#298263: fixed in gcc-4.0 4.0.1-1 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 yo

Bug#294560: marked as done ([fixed in 3.4] ICE on array initialization)

Your message dated Sun, 10 Jul 2005 13:47:40 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#294560: fixed in gcc-4.0 4.0.1-1 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 yo

Bug#293957: marked as done ([fixed in 3.4] gcc-3.3: No warning when initializing a variable with itself.)

Your message dated Sun, 10 Jul 2005 13:47:40 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#293957: fixed in gcc-4.0 4.0.1-1 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 yo

Bug#292958: marked as done ([fixed in 3.4/4.0] [PR 20046] [3.3 regression] [powerpc-linux] 3.3 CVS miscompiles bind 9.3.0)

Your message dated Sun, 10 Jul 2005 13:47:40 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#292958: fixed in gcc-4.0 4.0.1-1 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 yo

Bug#292961: marked as done ([fixed in 3.4] g++-3.3: vastly uninformative error message)

Your message dated Sun, 10 Jul 2005 13:47:40 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#292961: fixed in gcc-4.0 4.0.1-1 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 yo

Bug#288555: marked as done ([fixed in 3.4] g++-3.3: typeof operator is misparsed in a template function)

Your message dated Sun, 10 Jul 2005 13:47:40 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#288555: fixed in gcc-4.0 4.0.1-1 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 yo

Bug#286715: marked as done ([fixed in 4.0] [PR 19711] gcj segfaults instead of reporting the ambiguous expression)

Your message dated Sun, 10 Jul 2005 13:47:40 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#286715: fixed in gcc-4.0 4.0.1-1 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 yo

Bug#285692: marked as done ([fixed in 3.4/4.0] [PR 19006] [3.3 / 3.4 / 4.0 regression] ICE in tree_low_cst, at tree.c:3255)

Your message dated Sun, 10 Jul 2005 13:47:40 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#285692: fixed in gcc-4.0 4.0.1-1 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 yo

Bug#283503: marked as done ([fixed in 3.4] internal compiler error: in expand_call, at calls.c:3110)

Your message dated Sun, 10 Jul 2005 13:47:40 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#283503: fixed in gcc-4.0 4.0.1-1 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 yo

Bug#285238: marked as done ([fixed in 3.4] [arm] gcc -O3 -fPIC produces wrong code via auto inlining)

Your message dated Sun, 10 Jul 2005 13:47:40 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#285238: fixed in gcc-4.0 4.0.1-1 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 yo

Bug#281847: marked as done ([fixed in g++-4.0] g++ does not check arguments to fprintf)

Your message dated Sun, 10 Jul 2005 13:47:40 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#281847: fixed in gcc-4.0 4.0.1-1 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 yo

Bug#281602: marked as done ([fixed in 4.0] SocketChannel.get(ByteBuffer) returns 0 at EOF.)

Your message dated Sun, 10 Jul 2005 13:47:40 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#281602: fixed in gcc-4.0 4.0.1-1 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 yo

Bug#281445: marked as done ([fixed in 3.2/3.4] generated object file cannot be linked)

Your message dated Sun, 10 Jul 2005 13:47:40 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#281445: fixed in gcc-4.0 4.0.1-1 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 yo

Bug#276291: marked as done ([fixed in 3.4] g++-3.3 internal compiler error)

Your message dated Sun, 10 Jul 2005 13:47:39 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#276291: fixed in gcc-4.0 4.0.1-1 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 yo

Bug#270854: marked as done ([PR17827, fixed in 4.0] ICE: in make_decl_rtl, at varasm.c:752)

Your message dated Sun, 10 Jul 2005 13:47:39 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#270854: fixed in gcc-4.0 4.0.1-1 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 yo

Bug#270795: marked as done ([fixed in 3.4] monster-masher broken in fr_BE locale, Segfault at start)

Your message dated Sun, 10 Jul 2005 13:47:39 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#270795: fixed in gcc-4.0 4.0.1-1 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 yo

Bug#270620: marked as done ([fixed in 4.0] o32 ABI breakage in gcc 3.3/3.4)

Your message dated Sun, 10 Jul 2005 13:47:39 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#270620: fixed in gcc-4.0 4.0.1-1 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 yo

Bug#262956: marked as done ([fixed in 4.0] wrong/missing .so references in generated libstdc++ manpages)

Your message dated Sun, 10 Jul 2005 13:47:39 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#262956: fixed in gcc-4.0 4.0.1-1 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 yo

Bug#259789: marked as done ([fixed in gcc-3.4/libgcj5] java.text.CollationElementIterator lacks getOffset())

Your message dated Sun, 10 Jul 2005 13:47:39 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#259789: fixed in gcc-4.0 4.0.1-1 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 yo

Bug#255801: marked as done ([PR 16152, fixed in 3.4] perl-5.8.4 fails to build using gcc-3.3.4 on {ia64,arm,m68k}-linux)

Your message dated Sun, 10 Jul 2005 13:47:39 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#255801: fixed in gcc-4.0 4.0.1-1 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 yo

Bug#254626: marked as done (gcc-3.3: wrong optimization on sparc32 when building linux kernel)

Your message dated Sun, 10 Jul 2005 13:47:39 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#254626: fixed in gcc-4.0 4.0.1-1 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 yo

Bug#257012: marked as done ([fixed in 3.4] [m68k] ICE in verify_initial_elim_offsets, at reload1.c:3367)

Your message dated Sun, 10 Jul 2005 13:47:39 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#257012: fixed in gcc-4.0 4.0.1-1 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 yo

Bug#254659: marked as done ([fixed in 4.0] [PR 16066] i386 loop strength reduction bug)

Your message dated Sun, 10 Jul 2005 13:47:39 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#254659: fixed in gcc-4.0 4.0.1-1 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 yo

Bug#250174: marked as done ([fixed in 3.4] [amd64] Miscompilation of Objective-C code)

Your message dated Sun, 10 Jul 2005 13:47:39 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#250174: fixed in gcc-4.0 4.0.1-1 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 yo

Bug#248432: marked as done ([fixed in 4.0] [m68k] ICE in add_insn_before, at emit-rtl.c:3598)

Your message dated Sun, 10 Jul 2005 13:47:39 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#248432: fixed in gcc-4.0 4.0.1-1 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 yo

Bug#246640: marked as done ([PR15214] Spurious ctor/dtor warnings (fixed))

Your message dated Sun, 10 Jul 2005 13:47:39 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#246639: fixed in gcc-4.0 4.0.1-1 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 yo

Bug#246639: marked as done (g++-3.3: Spurious ctor/dtor warnings (fixed))

Your message dated Sun, 10 Jul 2005 13:47:39 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#246639: fixed in gcc-4.0 4.0.1-1 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 yo

Bug#246031: marked as done ([fixed in 3.4] g++-3.3 crashes with segfault on broken c++ code)

Your message dated Sun, 10 Jul 2005 13:47:39 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#246031: fixed in gcc-4.0 4.0.1-1 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 yo

Bug#277206: marked as done ([fixed in 3.4] ICE (segfault) while compiling Linux 2.6.9)

Your message dated Sun, 10 Jul 2005 13:47:39 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#242916: fixed in gcc-4.0 4.0.1-1 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 yo

Bug#242916: marked as done ([fixed in 3.4] ICE on invalid #define with -traditional)

Your message dated Sun, 10 Jul 2005 13:47:39 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#242916: fixed in gcc-4.0 4.0.1-1 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 yo

Bug#242318: marked as done ([fixed in 3.4] gcc could generate better code for if(!p) return NULL;return p;)

Your message dated Sun, 10 Jul 2005 13:47:39 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#242318: fixed in gcc-4.0 4.0.1-1 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 yo

Bug#238432: marked as done ([fixed in 4.0] gcj fails to wait for its child processes on exec())

Your message dated Sun, 10 Jul 2005 13:47:39 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#238432: fixed in gcc-4.0 4.0.1-1 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 yo

Bug#234709: marked as done ([fixed in 3.4] Unable to parse declaration of inline constructor explicit specialization)

Your message dated Sun, 10 Jul 2005 13:47:39 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#234709: fixed in gcc-4.0 4.0.1-1 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 yo

Bug#232709: marked as done ([fixed in 3.4] Undefined symbol: _M_setstate)

Your message dated Sun, 10 Jul 2005 13:47:39 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#232709: fixed in gcc-4.0 4.0.1-1 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 yo

Bug#229642: marked as done ([fixed in 3.4.1, PR 13928] no whatis info in some man pages generated by doxygen)

Your message dated Sun, 10 Jul 2005 13:47:39 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#229642: fixed in gcc-4.0 4.0.1-1 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 yo

Bug#252764: marked as done (gcc-3.3: buildd ICE on alpha building package fceu)

Your message dated Sun, 10 Jul 2005 13:47:39 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#228018: fixed in gcc-4.0 4.0.1-1 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 yo

Bug#306854: marked as done ([fixed in 3.4] gcc-3.3: gets stuck when compiling xine-lib CVS HEAD)

Your message dated Sun, 10 Jul 2005 13:47:40 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#306854: fixed in gcc-4.0 4.0.1-1 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 yo

Bug#304503: marked as done ([fixed in 4.0] Unaligned accesses with ?-operator)

Your message dated Sun, 10 Jul 2005 13:47:40 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#301983: fixed in gcc-4.0 4.0.1-1 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 yo

Bug#291374: marked as done ([fixed in 3.4] g++-3.3: nested struct with arrays initialisation asked for bugreport)

Your message dated Sun, 10 Jul 2005 13:47:40 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#291374: fixed in gcc-4.0 4.0.1-1 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 yo

Bug#280910: marked as done ([fixed in 4.0] libstdc++-doc: Some man pages are broken or perhaps shouldn't exist)

Your message dated Sun, 10 Jul 2005 13:47:40 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#280910: fixed in gcc-4.0 4.0.1-1 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 yo

Bug#262934: marked as done ([fixed in 4.0] unknown subjects in generated libstdc++ manpages)

Your message dated Sun, 10 Jul 2005 13:47:39 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#262934: fixed in gcc-4.0 4.0.1-1 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 yo

Bug#275547: marked as done ([fixed in 4.0] hang when rapidly calling String.intern())

Your message dated Sun, 10 Jul 2005 13:47:39 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#275547: fixed in gcc-4.0 4.0.1-1 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 yo

Bug#266110: marked as done ([fixed in 3.4] undefined symbols when using specials char_traits)

Your message dated Sun, 10 Jul 2005 13:47:39 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#266110: fixed in gcc-4.0 4.0.1-1 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 yo

Bug#228018: marked as done ([fixed in 3.4] [alpha] cc1 Internal error when building fceu-0.97.5)

Your message dated Sun, 10 Jul 2005 13:47:39 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#228018: fixed in gcc-4.0 4.0.1-1 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 yo

Bug#227518: marked as done ([fixed in 3.4] g++-3.3: Doesn't find inherited inner class after template instantiation)

Your message dated Sun, 10 Jul 2005 13:47:39 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#227518: fixed in gcc-4.0 4.0.1-1 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 yo

Bug#227129: marked as done ([fixed in 3.4] some strings are not translateable)

Your message dated Sun, 10 Jul 2005 13:47:39 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#227129: fixed in gcc-4.0 4.0.1-1 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 yo

Bug#225346: marked as done ([fixed in 4.0] gnat doesn't implement tasking on powerpc)

Your message dated Sun, 10 Jul 2005 13:47:39 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#225346: fixed in gcc-4.0 4.0.1-1 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 yo

Bug#243507: marked as done ([PR 151125] [3.3/3.4 regression, fixed in 3.5] g++ -Wformat doesn't warn for different types in fprintf)

Your message dated Sun, 10 Jul 2005 13:47:39 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#243507: fixed in gcc-4.0 4.0.1-1 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 yo

Bug#225935: marked as done ([PR 456, fixed in 3.4] handling of constant expressions)

Your message dated Sun, 10 Jul 2005 13:47:39 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#225935: fixed in gcc-4.0 4.0.1-1 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 yo

Bug#212260: marked as done ([fixed in 4.0] [PR 13518] "virtual functions but non-virtual destructor" warning incomplete)

Your message dated Sun, 10 Jul 2005 13:47:39 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#212260: fixed in gcc-4.0 4.0.1-1 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 yo

Bug#217360: marked as done ([PR12867, fixed in 3.5] incorrect warning message (void format, should be void* format))

Your message dated Sun, 10 Jul 2005 13:47:39 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#217360: fixed in gcc-4.0 4.0.1-1 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 yo

Bug#216105: marked as done ([fixed in 3.4] Using streambuf / iostream to read from a named pipe)

Your message dated Sun, 10 Jul 2005 13:47:39 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#216105: fixed in gcc-4.0 4.0.1-1 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 yo

Bug#218219: marked as done ([fixed in 3.4] [PR 12828] -floop-optimize is unstable on PowerPC (float to int conversion problem))

Your message dated Sun, 10 Jul 2005 13:47:39 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#218219: fixed in gcc-4.0 4.0.1-1 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 yo

Bug#208981: marked as done ([fixed in 4.0] typeof(nonconst+const) is const)

Your message dated Sun, 10 Jul 2005 13:47:39 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#208981: fixed in gcc-4.0 4.0.1-1 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 yo

Bug#200392: marked as done ([fixed in 3.4/4.0] [PR 11459] -stdc=c90 -pedantic warns about C90's non long-long support when in C99 mode)

Your message dated Sun, 10 Jul 2005 13:47:38 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#200392: fixed in gcc-4.0 4.0.1-1 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 yo

Bug#205404: marked as done ([PR 7618] [3.2/3.3 regression, fixed in 3.4] generic thunk code fails for method `virtual void Virt::p(const char*, ...)' which uses `...')

Your message dated Sun, 10 Jul 2005 13:47:39 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#205404: fixed in gcc-4.0 4.0.1-1 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 yo

Bug#203212: marked as done ([fixed in 4.0] [PR 11941] libgcj handles timezones wrongly)

Your message dated Sun, 10 Jul 2005 13:47:39 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#203212: fixed in gcc-4.0 4.0.1-1 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 yo

Bug#202016: marked as done ([fixed in 3.4] [PR 11635] [3.3/3.4 regression] Unnecessary store onto stack)

Your message dated Sun, 10 Jul 2005 13:47:39 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#202016: fixed in gcc-4.0 4.0.1-1 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 yo

Bug#204407: marked as done ([fixed in 3.4] [m68k] ICE in verify_initial_elim_offsets)

Your message dated Sun, 10 Jul 2005 13:47:39 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#204407: fixed in gcc-4.0 4.0.1-1 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 yo

Bug#200011: marked as done ([fixed in 3.4] [PR 11437] ICE in lookup_name_real)

Your message dated Sun, 10 Jul 2005 13:47:38 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#200011: fixed in gcc-4.0 4.0.1-1 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 yo

Bug#198261: marked as done ([fixed in 3.4] ICE when using namespaced typedef of primitive type as struct)

Your message dated Sun, 10 Jul 2005 13:47:38 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#198261: fixed in gcc-4.0 4.0.1-1 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 yo

Bug#197674: marked as done ([fixed in 3.4] ICE in regenerate_decl_from_template)

Your message dated Sun, 10 Jul 2005 13:47:38 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#197674: fixed in gcc-4.0 4.0.1-1 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 yo

Bug#198042: marked as done ([fixed in 3.4] [3.3 regression] function fails to propagate up class tree (template-related))

Your message dated Sun, 10 Jul 2005 13:47:38 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#198042: fixed in gcc-4.0 4.0.1-1 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 yo

Bug#197504: marked as done ([fixed in 3.4] [PR 11369] too relaxed checking with -Wstrict-prototypes)

Your message dated Sun, 10 Jul 2005 13:47:38 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#197504: fixed in gcc-4.0 4.0.1-1 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 yo

Bug#195483: marked as done ([fixed in 4.0] installation of common headers in /usr/include)

Your message dated Sun, 10 Jul 2005 13:47:38 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#195483: fixed in gcc-4.0 4.0.1-1 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 yo

Bug#196600: marked as done ([fixed in 3.4] [PR 11370] -Wunreachable-code gives false complaints)

Your message dated Sun, 10 Jul 2005 13:47:38 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#196600: fixed in gcc-4.0 4.0.1-1 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 yo

Bug#195480: marked as done ([fixed in 3.4] gcj-3.3 thinks a decl conflicts with itself)

Your message dated Sun, 10 Jul 2005 13:47:38 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#195480: fixed in gcc-4.0 4.0.1-1 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 yo

Bug#194345: marked as done ([fixed in 3.4] gcc-3.4 needs to much memory / gets killed by OOM-killer)

Your message dated Sun, 10 Jul 2005 13:47:38 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#194345: fixed in gcc-4.0 4.0.1-1 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 yo

Bug#194513: marked as done ([fixed in 3.4] Internal error: unbalanced parenthesis in operand 1)

Your message dated Sun, 10 Jul 2005 13:47:38 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#194513: fixed in gcc-4.0 4.0.1-1 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 yo

Bug#192568: marked as done ([fixed in 3.4] ICE on alpha while building agistudio)

Your message dated Sun, 10 Jul 2005 13:47:38 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#192568: fixed in gcc-4.0 4.0.1-1 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 yo

Bug#185604: marked as done ([PR c++/10199, fixed in 3.4] method parametrized by template does not work everywhere)

Your message dated Sun, 10 Jul 2005 13:47:38 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#185604: fixed in gcc-4.0 4.0.1-1 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 yo

Bug#177303: marked as done ([fixed in 3.4] [PR 11943] Accepts invalid declaration "int x[2, 3];" in C99 mode)

Your message dated Sun, 10 Jul 2005 13:47:38 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#177303: fixed in gcc-4.0 4.0.1-1 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 yo

Bug#175478: marked as done ([PR target/9201] [fixed in 3.4, 3.2/3.3 regression] ICE compiling octave-2.1 on m68k-linux)

Your message dated Sun, 10 Jul 2005 13:47:38 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#175478: fixed in gcc-4.0 4.0.1-1 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 yo

Bug#176101: marked as done ([fixed in 3.4] broken c++ code causes g++-3.2 and older to segfault)

Your message dated Sun, 10 Jul 2005 13:47:38 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#176101: fixed in gcc-4.0 4.0.1-1 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 yo

Bug#166940: marked as done ([fixed in 3.4] x86/sse2 ICEs on vector intrinsics)

Your message dated Sun, 10 Jul 2005 13:47:38 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#166940: fixed in gcc-4.0 4.0.1-1 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 yo

Bug#152501: marked as done ([[PR java/7304, fixed in 3.5] gcj-3.1 ICE)

Your message dated Sun, 10 Jul 2005 13:47:38 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#152501: fixed in gcc-4.0 4.0.1-1 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 yo

Bug#138561: marked as done ([fixed in 3.4] parse errors in nested constructor calls)

Your message dated Sun, 10 Jul 2005 13:47:38 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#138561: fixed in gcc-4.0 4.0.1-1 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 yo

Bug#128993: marked as done ([PR9073, fixed in 3.4] Can __STL_ASSERTIONS come back, but with more than rope?)

Your message dated Sun, 10 Jul 2005 13:47:38 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#128993: fixed in gcc-4.0 4.0.1-1 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 yo

Bug#164872: marked as done (g++-3.2: Defines _GNU_SOURCE)

Your message dated Sun, 10 Jul 2005 13:47:38 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#126703: fixed in gcc-4.0 4.0.1-1 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 yo

Bug#121282: marked as done ([PR c/9209] On i386, gcc-3.0 allows $ in indentifiers but not the asm)

Your message dated Sun, 10 Jul 2005 13:47:38 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#121282: fixed in gcc-4.0 4.0.1-1 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 yo

Bug#117765: marked as done ([fixed in 4.0] Failure to detect use of unitialized variable with -O -Wall)

Your message dated Sun, 10 Jul 2005 13:47:37 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#117765: fixed in gcc-4.0 4.0.1-1 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 yo

Bug#153472: marked as done ([fixed in 3.4, PR c/4106] i386 -fPIC asm ebx clobber no error)

Your message dated Sun, 10 Jul 2005 13:47:38 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#153472: fixed in gcc-4.0 4.0.1-1 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 yo

Bug#121269: marked as done ([fixed in 3.4] On i386, gcc-3.0 allows $ in indentifiers but not the asm)

Your message dated Sun, 10 Jul 2005 13:47:38 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#121282: fixed in gcc-4.0 4.0.1-1 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 yo

Bug#105309: marked as done ([fixed in 3.4: PR optimization/3995] i386 optimisation: joining tests)

Your message dated Sun, 10 Jul 2005 13:47:37 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#105309: fixed in gcc-4.0 4.0.1-1 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 yo

Bug#126703: marked as done ( defines _GNU_SOURCE with g++-3.x)

Your message dated Sun, 10 Jul 2005 13:47:38 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#126703: fixed in gcc-4.0 4.0.1-1 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 yo

[Bug rtl-optimization/323] optimized code gives strange floating point results

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-10 18:09 --- *** Bug 22394 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- What|Removed |Added

Bug#169862: marked as done ([fixed in 3.4, optimization/1823] -ftrapv aborts with pointer difference due to division optimization)

Your message dated Sun, 10 Jul 2005 13:47:38 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#169862: fixed in gcc-4.0 4.0.1-1 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 yo

Bug#196380: marked as done ([fixed in 3.4] libstdc++5-3.3-doc: lower_bound is not well documented)

Your message dated Sun, 10 Jul 2005 13:47:38 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#196380: fixed in gcc-4.0 4.0.1-1 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 yo

Bug#187091: marked as done ([fixed in 3.4] [PR 11942] restrict keyword broken in C99 mode)

Your message dated Sun, 10 Jul 2005 13:47:38 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#187091: fixed in gcc-4.0 4.0.1-1 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 yo

Bug#200140: marked as done ([fixed in 3.4] [PR 11445] false positive warning with -Wunreachable-code)

Your message dated Sun, 10 Jul 2005 13:47:38 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#200140: fixed in gcc-4.0 4.0.1-1 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 yo

Bug#210844: marked as done ([fixed in 3.4] [3.3 regression] Constraint error for valid input)

Your message dated Sun, 10 Jul 2005 13:47:39 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#210844: fixed in gcc-4.0 4.0.1-1 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 yo

Bug#209152: marked as done ([fixed in 3.4] Large array problem on 64 bit platforms)

Your message dated Sun, 10 Jul 2005 13:47:39 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#209152: fixed in gcc-4.0 4.0.1-1 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 yo

Bug#218803: marked as done ([fixed in 3.5] [PR 13072] Bogus warning with VLA in switch)

Your message dated Sun, 10 Jul 2005 13:47:39 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#218803: fixed in gcc-4.0 4.0.1-1 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 yo

Bug#192135: marked as done ([fixed in 4.0] Convention Fortran matrices mishandled in generics)

Your message dated Sun, 10 Jul 2005 13:47:38 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#192135: fixed in gcc-4.0 4.0.1-1 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 yo

Bug#220000: marked as done ([fixed in 3.4] libstdc++: largefile support (LFS) missing)

Your message dated Sun, 10 Jul 2005 13:47:39 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#22: fixed in gcc-4.0 4.0.1-1 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 yo

Bug#226244: marked as done ([fixed in 3.4] [3.3 regression] gcc -O3 -fprofile-arcs causes an array initalizer to be miscompiled)

Your message dated Sun, 10 Jul 2005 13:47:39 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#226244: fixed in gcc-4.0 4.0.1-1 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 yo

Bug#234711: marked as done ([PR 14711, fixed in 3.4] ICE in final.c:2117 when compiling a huge source file)

Your message dated Sun, 10 Jul 2005 13:47:39 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#234711: fixed in gcc-4.0 4.0.1-1 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 yo

  1   2   >