fyi,
gcc version 3.3.1 20030626 (Debian prerelease)
(aka '3.3.1-0pre0' in debian)
improves a bit on the situation:
class Foo {
template class T struct InFoo;
template class T, class U struct InFoo2;
};
template
struct Foo::InFooint {
// ...this works now... (didn't work with 3.3.0)
};
PLEASE REPLY TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ONLY, *NOT* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10849
--- Additional Comments From debian-gcc at lists dot debian dot org
2003-06-29 08:44 ---
[forwarded from http://bugs.debian.org/193830]
fyi,
gcc version 3.3.1
PLEASE REPLY TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ONLY, *NOT* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10849
debian-gcc at lists dot debian dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
PLEASE REPLY TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ONLY, *NOT* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10849
giovannibajo at libero dot it changed:
What|Removed |Added
retitle 197674 [fixed in 3.4] ICE in regenerate_decl_from_template
tags 197674 + upstream
thanks
see the gcc-snapshot package for the next gcc version.
$ /usr/lib/gcc-snapshot/bin/g++ -frtti -ffor-scope -posix -ansi -pedantic -pipe
-Wsign-promo -Wall -Wpointer-arith -Wcast-align
Rene,
as I wrote on Fri, 23 May 2003 10:39:48 +0200, I am unable to
reproduce this report. Is somebody else able to confirm this report?
Matthias
Please could you check, if the always_inline attribute (gcc-snapshot
package) works for you?
Herbert Valerio Riedel writes:
Package: libstdc++5-3.3-dev
Version: 1:3.3-2
Severity: minor
I just noticed, that std::conj() doesn't get inlined, as one'd expect it
to be;
it seems that a
Hi Matthias,
Matthias Klose wrote:
as I wrote on Fri, 23 May 2003 10:39:48 +0200, I am unable to
reproduce this report. Is somebody else able to confirm this report?
I unfortunately rm'ed the patches I used for 1.0.3 to get it
built to this point with g++ 3.3 from my disk since we a) were
Package: g++-3.2
Version: 1:3.2.3-5
Followup-For: Bug #196505
I'm seeing this bug too. The reason:
lrwxrwxrwx1 root root 12 2003-06-29 16:25 g++-3.2.1.gz -
gcc-3.2.1.gz
lrwxrwxrwx1 root root9 2003-06-29 16:25
i386-linux-g++-3.2.1 - g++-3.2.1
Simply add
PLEASE REPLY TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ONLY, *NOT* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11054
wilson at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Rejected: gpc-2.1-3.3-doc_3.3.1.20030507-0pre0_all.deb: old version
(1:3.3.20030507-3) in unstable = new version (1:3.3.1.20030507-0pre0) targeted
at unstable.
Rejected: gpc-2.1-3.3-doc_3.3.1.20030507-0pre0_all.deb: old version
(1:3.3.20030507-2) in testing = new version
Rejected: no source found for gcc-3.3 1:3.3.1ds0-0pre0
(protoize_3.3.1-0pre0_hppa.deb).
Rejected: no source found for gcc-3.3 1:3.3.1ds0-0pre0
(gcc-3.3-base_3.3.1-0pre0_hppa.deb).
Rejected: no source found for gcc-3.3 1:3.3.1ds0-0pre0
(libobjc1_3.3.1-0pre0_hppa.deb).
Rejected: no source found
Accepted:
cpp-3.3-doc_3.3.1-0pre0_all.deb
to pool/main/g/gcc-3.3/cpp-3.3-doc_3.3.1-0pre0_all.deb
cpp-3.3_3.3.1-0pre0_i386.deb
to pool/main/g/gcc-3.3/cpp-3.3_3.3.1-0pre0_i386.deb
fastjar_3.3.1-0pre0_i386.deb
to pool/main/g/gcc-3.3/fastjar_3.3.1-0pre0_i386.deb
fixincludes_3.3.1-0pre0_i386.deb
Your message dated Fri, 27 Jun 2003 06:17:37 -0400
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#194749: fixed in gcc-3.3 1:3.3.1ds0-0pre0
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
Your message dated Fri, 27 Jun 2003 06:17:37 -0400
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#194330: fixed in gcc-3.3 1:3.3.1ds0-0pre0
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
Your message dated Fri, 27 Jun 2003 06:17:37 -0400
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#195424: fixed in gcc-3.3 1:3.3.1ds0-0pre0
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
Your message dated Fri, 27 Jun 2003 06:17:37 -0400
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#194330: fixed in gcc-3.3 1:3.3.1ds0-0pre0
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
Your message dated Fri, 27 Jun 2003 06:17:37 -0400
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#195237: fixed in gcc-3.3 1:3.3.1ds0-0pre0
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
Your message dated Fri, 27 Jun 2003 06:17:37 -0400
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#196915: fixed in gcc-3.3 1:3.3.1ds0-0pre0
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
Your message dated Fri, 27 Jun 2003 06:17:37 -0400
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#193049: fixed in gcc-3.3 1:3.3.1ds0-0pre0
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
Your message dated Fri, 27 Jun 2003 06:17:37 -0400
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#196271: fixed in gcc-3.3 1:3.3.1ds0-0pre0
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
Your message dated Fri, 27 Jun 2003 06:17:36 -0400
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#186185: fixed in gcc-3.3 1:3.3.1ds0-0pre0
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
Your message dated Fri, 27 Jun 2003 06:17:38 -0400
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#197613: fixed in gcc-3.3 1:3.3.1ds0-0pre0
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
Your message dated Fri, 27 Jun 2003 06:17:38 -0400
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#197099: fixed in gcc-3.3 1:3.3.1ds0-0pre0
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
Your message dated Fri, 27 Jun 2003 06:17:37 -0400
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#196744: fixed in gcc-3.3 1:3.3.1ds0-0pre0
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
Rejected: no signature found in gcc-3.3_3.3.1ds0-0pre0_hppa.changes.
===
If you don't understand why your files were rejected, or if the
override file requires editing, reply to this email.
PLEASE REPLY TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ONLY, *NOT* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11350
pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu changed:
What|Removed |Added
PLEASE REPLY TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ONLY, *NOT* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11350
pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu changed:
What|Removed |Added
On Fri, Jun 27, 2003 at 10:23:34AM +0200, Manuel Serrano wrote:
Which version of GCC are you using?
Debian's 3.3 package, which seems to contain only a small number of
fixes.
All GCC3.x version actually released
contains the very same sever bug. In short, they are not able to
correctly
Do you know whether they have a problem-report and/or fix easily
available for application on our 3.3 ? The debian gcc maintainers may
be interested in applying the fix...
I have reported the bug to GCC developers last week. They seems to
have identified the problem. I can't tell you much more
There are disparities between your recently accepted upload and the
override file for the following file(s):
gcc-3.2-base_3.2.3-5_hppa.deb: package says priority is important, override
says optional.
Either the package or the override file is incorrect. If you think
the override is correct and
Accepted:
cpp-3.2-doc_3.2.3-5_all.deb
to pool/main/g/gcc-3.2/cpp-3.2-doc_3.2.3-5_all.deb
cpp-3.2_3.2.3-5_hppa.deb
to pool/main/g/gcc-3.2/cpp-3.2_3.2.3-5_hppa.deb
g++-3.2_3.2.3-5_hppa.deb
to pool/main/g/gcc-3.2/g++-3.2_3.2.3-5_hppa.deb
g77-3.2-doc_3.2.3-5_all.deb
to
Accepted:
cpp-3.3_3.3.1-0pre0_powerpc.deb
to pool/main/g/gcc-3.3/cpp-3.3_3.3.1-0pre0_powerpc.deb
fastjar_3.3.1-0pre0_powerpc.deb
to pool/main/g/gcc-3.3/fastjar_3.3.1-0pre0_powerpc.deb
fixincludes_3.3.1-0pre0_powerpc.deb
to pool/main/g/gcc-3.3/fixincludes_3.3.1-0pre0_powerpc.deb
PLEASE REPLY TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ONLY, *NOT* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11350
pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu changed:
What|Removed |Added
LAST_UPDATED:
Native configuration is m68k-unknown-linux-gnu
=== g++ tests ===
Running target unix
FAIL: g++.eh/spec3.C Execution test
FAIL: g++.eh/spec4.C Execution test
XPASS: g++.other/init5.C Execution test
=== g++ Summary ===
# of expected passes
LAST_UPDATED: Thu Jun 26 05:24:39 UTC 2003
Native configuration is arm-unknown-linux-gnu
=== libjava tests ===
Running target unix
FAIL: calls run
WARNING: program timed out.
FAIL: cxxtest run
FAIL: field run
FAIL: final_method run
FAIL: findclass run
FAIL: invoke run
FAIL:
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
reassign 199203 libstdc++5
Bug#199203: apt-get dies from Illegal instructions on some (old) machines
Bug reassigned from package `apt' to `libstdc++5'.
severity 199203 important
Bug#199203: apt-get dies from Illegal instructions on some (old) machines
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
# submitted Debian report #195911 to gcc-gnats as PR 11350
# http://gcc.gnu.org/PR11350
forwarded 195911 http://gcc.gnu.org/PR11350
Bug#195911: gcc-3.3: undefined labels with -Os -fPIC
Bug#195913: gcc-3.3: undefined labels with -Os -fPIC
Bug#195915:
38 matches
Mail list logo
