gcc-defaults

Hi debian-gcc, If I understand it correctly the gcc-defaults package allows the different architectures to specify different default versions of the various compiler bits and it gets all the dependencies right. Have I got that correct? Is this working? I'm interested in making it work for hppa

gcc-3.0 transition

Hi debian-gcc, Since we're using gcc-3.0 for the hppa port I've been running into some packages that break with the new compilers. Since hppa is a young port and still has some problems I'm often not sure if it's an hppa problem or a gcc-3.0 problem. Even if I think it's a gcc-3.0 problem it

[hjl@lucon.org: Re: atexit bug, RFC]

We need this in the next gcc-2.95 ASAP, please. This only affects i386. All other archs appear to work fine. - Forwarded message from H . J . Lu [EMAIL PROTECTED] - X-From_: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Mar 26 15:06:50 2001 From: H . J . Lu [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Ben Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: more patch bugs in current gcc-2.95.3?

On Mon, 26 Mar 2001, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: If you do, please look at devel.linuxppc.com/users/fsirl/ for a current version of the patch. Tried the new one and it still dies. I'll break it down and see what is causing the failure. Obviously, we can rule out the rs6000-specific patches,

Processed: [ARM] gcc optimisation bug (-O2 fails; -O0 and -O1 work)

Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: reassign 91823 gcc-2.95 Bug#91823: binutils will not build on arm Bug reassigned from package `binutils' to `gcc-2.95'. stop Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. Darren Benham (administrator, Debian Bugs database)

Bug#91846: marked as done (g++: /usr/doc/g++-2.95/README.C++ mentions docs but not package)

Your message dated Tue, 27 Mar 2001 07:38:51 +0200 (MEST) with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED] and subject line Bug#91846: g++: /usr/doc/g++-2.95/README.C++ mentions docs but not package has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been