Source: gcc-11
Followup-For: Bug #1004184
X-Debbugs-Cc: frederic-emmanuel.pi...@synchrotron-soleil.fr
Control: forwarded -1 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104914
Hi Frederic: I'm linking a forwarded GCC GNU bug report that I _think_ is the
upstream report matching this bug. I found
Package: gcc-10
Version: 10.4.0-7
Followup-For: Bug #1023666
Bug #1004184 implies that gcc-11 cannot build correct mips64 code for a key
Debian package (source: matplotlib) without buildflag adjustments. However,
gcc-10 does emit correct code for the same package and architecture.
Should that be
Package: gcc-11
Followup-For: Bug #1005863
X-Debbugs-Cc: martin-eric.rac...@iki.fi
Control: affects -1 - sudo net-tools
Control: affects -1 + libjavascriptcoregtk-4.0-18
Control: affects -1 + gobjc++-12-x86-64-linux-gnu
Control: affects -1 + libfsapfs-dev
Dear Maintainer and Martin-Éric,
Using a
Package: gcc-11
Followup-For: Bug #1005863
X-Debbugs-Cc: martin-eric.rac...@iki.fi
Control: affects -1 + sudo
> That's three potential positives; in total, the check ran on approximately
> thirty-two thousand (32340, to be more precise) packages.
My apologies: there was a bug in the script to run
Package: gcc-11
Followup-For: Bug #1005863
X-Debbugs-Cc: martin-eric.rac...@iki.fi
Ok; I should have realised that scanning the entire contents of the i386
bookworm archive for particular opcodes across _all_ files on a single machine
seemed to complete surprisingly quickly..
Please find attached
Package: gcc-11
Followup-For: Bug #1005863
X-Debbugs-Cc: martin-eric.rac...@iki.fi
> So my guess is that approximately 6-7% of i386 packages in bookworm _that
> contain binaries or shared libraries_ are susceptible to this bug.
...
> It's also a larger number of packages than we could expect ind
Package: gcc-11
Followup-For: Bug #1005863
X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-gcc@lists.debian.org, debian-rele...@lists.debian.org,
debian-pol...@lists.debian.org
Hi folks,
Bug #1005863 describes a gcc-11 behaviour that results in software that exits
ungracefully on Geode LX i686 hardware. Despite self-repo
On Mon, 20 Mar 2023 at 07:22, Bastian Blank wrote:
>
> On Sun, Mar 19, 2023 at 11:47:21PM +, James Addison wrote:
> > Would it be fair to raise the severity of this bug to a release-critical
> > level?
>
> No, it would be fair to remove Geode LX from the set of suppor
Followup-For: Bug #1005863
X-Debbugs-Cc: ballo...@debian.org
Control: reassign -1 binutils 2.38-1
Reassigning this from package 'gcc' to 'binutils':
It looks like it is GNU binutils[1] (and in particular, the GNU assembler)
that is responsible for producing the assembly opcodes for a binary compi
Followup-For: Bug #1005863
Control: affects -1 = sudo
Source: gcc-11
Followup-For: Bug #1004184
Control: fixed -1 gcc-14/14.1.0-1
I haven't yet confirmed that the output of an O1/O2 build is corrected when
compiling on MIPS, but the relevant patches have arrived in gcc v14.1 and are
packaged in Debian, so I'm updating the tags on this bug to record t
11 matches
Mail list logo
