Your message dated Sun, 04 Sep 2005 12:52:43 -0400
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line m68k built with -O2
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; 1 Sep 2005 09:25:58 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Sep 01 02:25:58 2005
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from dsl093-039-086.pdx1.dsl.speakeasy.net (tennyson.dodds.net) 
[66.93.39.86] 
        by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.36 1 (Debian))
        id 1EAlKX-0002FR-00; Thu, 01 Sep 2005 02:25:57 -0700
Received: by tennyson.dodds.net (Postfix, from userid 1003)
        id E58457049; Thu,  1 Sep 2005 02:25:56 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 02:25:56 -0700
From: Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: FTBFS: mlgmp_20021123-6 (unstable/m68k): internal compiler error
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
        protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="YiEDa0DAkWCtVeE4"
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02 
        (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-8.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_PACKAGE 
        autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02


--YiEDa0DAkWCtVeE4
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Package: mlgmp
Version: 20021123-6
Severity: serious

Hi Mike,

It appears that mlgmp is failing to build on m68k with an ICE:

    > ocamlc -g  -c gmp.ml
    > gcc -Wall -Wno-unused -g -O3 -fPIC -I /usr/lib/ocaml/3.08.3    -c -o =
mlgmp_z.o mlgmp_z.c
    > In file included from mlgmp_z.c:13:
    > conversions.c:68: warning: ignoring #pragma inline=20
    > conversions.c:92: warning: ignoring #pragma inline=20
    > mlgmp_z.c: In function '_mlgmp_z_neg':
    > mlgmp_z.c:260: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault
    > Please submit a full bug report,
    > with preprocessed source if appropriate.
    > See <URL:http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs.html> for instructions.
    > For Debian GNU/Linux specific bug reporting instructions,
    > see <URL:file:///usr/share/doc/gcc-4.0/README.Bugs>.
    > make[1]: *** [mlgmp_z.o] Error 1

Unfortunately no build log is available for this build since it seems to
have not made it to buildd.debian.org, but you can find the current
wanna-build status of the package (which includes the notes made by the
buildd maintainer) at
<http://cerberus.0c3.net/~buildd/package_status.php?arch=3Dm68k&pkg=3Dmlgmp=
&searchtype=3Dgo>.

There appear to be a number of bugs in gcc-4.0 related to -O3
optimization on m68k.  It's possible that you can get mlgmp to build by
lowering this optimization level to -O2, which btw is the recommended
default optimization according to policy.

Since gmp's ABI transition is tied to gcc-4.0 and we're trying to get
both packages moved into testing ASAP after glibc 2.3.5 transitions,
mlgmp will be removed from testing temporarily pending resolution of
this bug.

Thanks,
--=20
Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]                                   http://www.debian.org/

--YiEDa0DAkWCtVeE4
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFDFskkKN6ufymYLloRAm4kAJ9NLRiU2+1Kv02cI7ASZByfift23ACfXhI4
+Oz4rgMfSpevasoSPJLgW3o=
=eh4F
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--YiEDa0DAkWCtVeE4--

---------------------------------------
Received: (at 326018-done) by bugs.debian.org; 4 Sep 2005 16:52:47 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Sep 04 09:52:47 2005
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from mx3out.umbc.edu [130.85.25.12] 
        by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.36 1 (Debian))
        id 1EBxjb-0004Ip-00; Sun, 04 Sep 2005 09:52:47 -0700
Received: from [192.168.0.2] (pcp0010373886pcs.howard01.md.comcast.net 
[68.48.97.27])
        by mx3out.umbc.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10/UMBC-Central 1.1.2.1  mxout  
1.2.2.3) with ESMTP id j84Gqi5g024267
        (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NO)
        for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sun, 4 Sep 2005 12:52:44 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 04 Sep 2005 12:52:43 -0400
From: Mike Furr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
User-Agent: Debian Thunderbird 1.0.6 (X11/20050802)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: m68k built with -O2
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.92.0.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-AvMilter-Key: 1125853066:477c8e982e2d79cd44e3898575d4ea08
X-Avmilter: Message Skipped, too small
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02 
        (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.4 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_PACKAGE,
        UPPERCASE_25_50 autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Package: mlgmp
Version: 20021123-7

Rebuilding with -O2 avoids the ICE on m68k.  Thanks Steve.

Cheers,
- -Mike
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFDGyZY7ZPKKRJLJvMRAhU3AJ9WISVDvUoVqhUlnHY8V/VRu81pTgCggQcZ
s33IIkbeNjMy65kyJgk5Tpc=
=/NlA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to