Your message dated Mon, 22 Dec 2003 20:50:10 +0900
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line 168888
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 your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere. Please contact me immediately.)
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--------------------------------------
Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 13 Nov 2002 06:43:41 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Nov 13 00:43:40 2002
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from h24-83-208-253.sbm.shawcable.net (straylight.cyberhqz.com)
[24.83.208.253] (postfix)
by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 1 (Debian))
id 18BrFT-0004Jm-00; Wed, 13 Nov 2002 00:43:40 -0600
Received: by straylight.cyberhqz.com (Postfix, from userid 1000)
id BD05A54004; Tue, 12 Nov 2002 22:43:38 -0800 (PST)
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 22:43:38 -0800
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: G++ 3.2 breakage on sparc
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="Rgf3q3z9SdmXC6oT"
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ryan Murray)
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.4 required=5.0
tests=PGP_SIGNATURE_2,SPAM_PHRASE_00_01,USER_AGENT,
USER_AGENT_MUTT
version=2.41
X-Spam-Level:
--Rgf3q3z9SdmXC6oT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Package: g++-3.2
Severity: important
Version: 3.2.1-0pre5
As James has already posted, the following does not work on sparc:
| (unstable)[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ cat test.C
| #include <cstdio>
|
| int main (int argc, char **argv)
| {
| printf("Hello\n");
| return 0;
|
| }
| (unstable)[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ echo "#include <cmath>" > test-with-cmath.C; cat =
test.C >> test-with-cmath.C
| (unstable)[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ g++ -o test{,.C}; echo $?
| 0
| (unstable)[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ g++-3.2 -o test{,.C}; echo $?
| 0
| (unstable)[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ g++ -o test-with-cmath{,.C}; echo $?
| 0
| (unstable)[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ g++-3.2 -o test-with-cmath{,.C}; echo $?
| In file included from test-with-cmath.C:1:
| /usr/include/c++/3.2/cmath: In function `long double std::acos(long doubl=
e)':
| /usr/include/c++/3.2/cmath:109: `::acosl' undeclared (first use here)
| /usr/include/c++/3.2/cmath: In function `long double std::asin(long doubl=
e)':
| /usr/include/c++/3.2/cmath:127: `::asinl' undeclared (first use here)
| /usr/include/c++/3.2/cmath: In function `long double std::atan(long doubl=
e)':
| /usr/include/c++/3.2/cmath:145: `::atanl' undeclared (first use here)
| /usr/include/c++/3.2/cmath: In function `long double std::atan2(long doub=
le,
| long double)':
| /usr/include/c++/3.2/cmath:164: `::atan2l' undeclared (first use here)
| /usr/include/c++/3.2/cmath: In function `long double std::ceil(long doubl=
e)':
| /usr/include/c++/3.2/cmath:183: `::ceill' undeclared (first use here)
| /usr/include/c++/3.2/cmath: In function `long double std::cosh(long doubl=
e)':
| /usr/include/c++/3.2/cmath:211: `::coshl' undeclared (first use here)
| /usr/include/c++/3.2/cmath: In function `long double std::exp(long double=
)':
| /usr/include/c++/3.2/cmath:229: `::expl' undeclared (first use here)
| /usr/include/c++/3.2/cmath: In function `long double std::floor(long doub=
le)':
| /usr/include/c++/3.2/cmath:257: `::floorl' undeclared (first use here)
| /usr/include/c++/3.2/cmath: In function `long double std::fmod(long doubl=
e,
| long double)':
| /usr/include/c++/3.2/cmath:276: `::fmodl' undeclared (first use here)
| /usr/include/c++/3.2/cmath: In function `long double std::frexp(long doub=
le,
| int*)':
| /usr/include/c++/3.2/cmath:295: `::frexpl' undeclared (first use here)
| /usr/include/c++/3.2/cmath: In function `long double std::ldexp(long doub=
le,
| int)':
| /usr/include/c++/3.2/cmath:315: `::ldexpl' undeclared (first use here)
| /usr/include/c++/3.2/cmath: In function `long double std::log(long double=
)':
| /usr/include/c++/3.2/cmath:334: `::logl' undeclared (first use here)
| /usr/include/c++/3.2/cmath: In function `long double std::log10(long doub=
le)':
| /usr/include/c++/3.2/cmath:352: `::log10l' undeclared (first use here)
| /usr/include/c++/3.2/cmath: In function `long double std::modf(long doubl=
e,
| long double*)':
| /usr/include/c++/3.2/cmath:376: `::modfl' undeclared (first use here)
| /usr/include/c++/3.2/cmath: In function `long double std::pow(long double=
, long
| double)':
| /usr/include/c++/3.2/cmath:410: `::powl' undeclared (first use here)
| /usr/include/c++/3.2/cmath: In function `long double std::sinh(long doubl=
e)':
| /usr/include/c++/3.2/cmath:451: `::sinhl' undeclared (first use here)
| /usr/include/c++/3.2/cmath: In function `long double std::tan(long double=
)':
| /usr/include/c++/3.2/cmath:479: `::tanl' undeclared (first use here)
| /usr/include/c++/3.2/cmath: In function `long double std::tanh(long doubl=
e)':
| /usr/include/c++/3.2/cmath:497: `::tanhl' undeclared (first use here)
| 1
| (unstable)[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$
The problem is caused by
/usr/lib/gcc-lib/sparc-linux/3.2.1/include/bits/mathdef.h:77:
#ifndef __NO_LONG_DOUBLE_MATH
# if __WORDSIZE =3D=3D 32
/* Signal that in 32bit ABI we do not really have a `long double'.
The disables the declaration of all the `long double' function
variants. */
# define __NO_LONG_DOUBLE_MATH 1
# endif
when combined with:/usr/include/c++/3.2/sparc-linux/bits/c++config.h:398:
/* Define if you have the acosl function. */
#define _GLIBCPP_HAVE_ACOSL 1
(and other #defines like it that cause the above errors)
So, all of the functions that are causing an error need to be wrapped in
# ifndef __NO_LONG_DOUBLE_MATH - 0 blocks in c++config.h, or in
# __WORDSIZE checks. This may mean that sparc needs an arch specific
# c++config.h, like it has an arch specific mathdef.h
However, all of these functions do exist in libm.so.6, so perhaps the sparc
specific bits/mathdef.h should be removed instead?
Ben? What should we do with this?
--=20
Ryan Murray, Debian Developer ([EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED])
The opinions expressed here are my own.
--Rgf3q3z9SdmXC6oT
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQE90fSaN2Dbz/1mRasRAl0pAJ4gAUkUCZpLyG7kPbyDtpVH9aBxIQCeP08o
fD4rogGZFsQGaavquMXtcM0=
=knB0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--Rgf3q3z9SdmXC6oT--
---------------------------------------
Received: (at 168888-done) by bugs.debian.org; 22 Dec 2003 14:47:15 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Dec 22 08:46:58 2003
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from omega.webmasters.gr.jp (webmasters.gr.jp) [218.44.239.78]
by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 1AYOZf-0002EB-00; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 05:50:12 -0600
Received: from omega.webmasters.gr.jp (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by webmasters.gr.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP
id 5F3EADEB7C; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 20:50:10 +0900 (JST)
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 20:50:10 +0900
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: GOTO Masanori <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Jeff Bailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: 168888
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.9.9 (Unchained Melody) SEMI/1.14.3 (Ushinoya)
FLIM/1.14.3 (=?ISO-8859-4?Q?Unebigory=F2mae?=) APEL/10.3 Emacs/21.2
(i386-debian-linux-gnu) MULE/5.0 (SAKAKI)
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.3 - "Ushinoya")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin
2.60-master.debian.org_2003_11_25-bugs.debian.org_2003_12_15
(1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on master.debian.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=4.0 tests=FOOASDF autolearn=no
version=2.60-master.debian.org_2003_11_25-bugs.debian.org_2003_12_15
X-Spam-Level:
Hi Jeff!
At Sun, 21 Dec 2003 14:25:51 -0500,
Jeff Bailey wrote:
> Is there any reason to keep 168888 open now? There hasn't been any
> response since you showed that it works...
Oh, I have forgotten this bug... Thanks, I've just closed it :)
Regards,
-- gotom
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
