On Thu, May 03, 2007 at 02:06:38PM -0500, Jordi Gutierrez Hermoso wrote:
> So what, exactly, is the status of the GFDL and GCC's manpage? I still
> insist that no GCC manpage is a serious policy violation, especially
> considering the importance of a package like GCC.
The man page is generated fro
Package: gcj-4.2
Version: 4.2-20070405-1
Severity: normal
Trying to compile a very simple test program fails:
$ LANG=C gcj-4.2 -c Test.java
gcj-4.2: libgcj.spec: No such file or directory
Here's the simple test prog ftw:
public class Test
{
public static void main(String[]
Daniel Jacobowitz writes:
> On Thu, May 03, 2007 at 02:06:38PM -0500, Jordi Gutierrez Hermoso wrote:
> > So what, exactly, is the status of the GFDL and GCC's manpage? I still
> > insist that no GCC manpage is a serious policy violation, especially
> > considering the importance of a package like G
On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 02:16:28PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Daniel Jacobowitz writes:
> > On Thu, May 03, 2007 at 02:06:38PM -0500, Jordi Gutierrez Hermoso wrote:
> > > So what, exactly, is the status of the GFDL and GCC's manpage? I still
> > > insist that no GCC manpage is a serious policy
Daniel Jacobowitz writes:
> On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 02:16:28PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > Daniel Jacobowitz writes:
> > > On Thu, May 03, 2007 at 02:06:38PM -0500, Jordi Gutierrez Hermoso wrote:
> > > > So what, exactly, is the status of the GFDL and GCC's manpage? I still
> > > > insist that
Sorry I don't think I highlighted the bit I meant.
On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 02:28:06PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> >ware Foundation; with the Invariant Sections being "GNU General
> >Public License" and "Funding
> >Free Software",
How can Funding Free Software be an inva
Daniel Jacobowitz writes:
> Sorry I don't think I highlighted the bit I meant.
>
> On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 02:28:06PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > >ware Foundation; with the Invariant Sections being "GNU General
> > >Public License" and "Funding
> > >Free Software",
>
--- Comment #22 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2007-05-11 14:09 ---
Alternative patch to emit_move_change_mode() to take push_operand away from
change_address():
Index: expr.c
===
--- expr.c (revision 124612)
+++ expr.c
Package: gcc-snapshot
Version: 20070422-1
Severity: important
sample code:
=
#include
#include
#include
static int bar(void *p)
{
return (int)(intptr_t)p;
}
static int foo(const void *p)
{
return bar((void *)p);
}
int main(void)
{
printf("%d\n
* Pierre Habouzit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-05-11 16:34]:
> does not work:
> /usr/lib/gcc-snapshot/bin/gcc -O2 -o a.o a.c
> a.c: In function 'main':
> a.c:12: warning: passing argument 1 of 'bar' discards qualifiers from
> pointer target type
I wonder if that's the same as #403596 (note tha
On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 02:38:57PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Daniel Jacobowitz writes:
> > Sorry I don't think I highlighted the bit I meant.
> >
> > On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 02:28:06PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > > >ware Foundation; with the Invariant Sections being "GNU General
On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 04:46:28PM +0200, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> * Pierre Habouzit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-05-11 16:34]:
> > does not work:
> > /usr/lib/gcc-snapshot/bin/gcc -O2 -o a.o a.c
> > a.c: In function 'main':
> > a.c:12: warning: passing argument 1 of 'bar' discards qualifiers f
On Mon, May 07, 2007 at 12:23:20PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> I see the same behaviour with the gcc-snapshot package.
So it seems. PR 31900 now.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTEC
#
# bts-link upstream status pull for source package gcc-snapshot
# see http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2006/05/msg1.html
#
user [EMAIL PROTECTED]
# remote status report for #420550
# * http://gcc.gnu.org/PR31663
# * remote status changed: ASSIGNED -> RESOLVED
# * remote reso
#
# bts-link upstream status pull for source package gcc-4.1
# see http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2006/05/msg1.html
#
user [EMAIL PROTECTED]
# remote status report for #417542
# * http://gcc.gnu.org/PR28508
# * remote status changed: (?) -> NEW
usertags 417542 + status-NEW
t
The subscription of the email address:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To the mailing list:
Al-Manahel Newsletter List
is all set. Thanks for subscribing!
Date of this subscription: Tue May 8 19:19:44 2007
Please save this email message for future reference.
-
The subscription of the email address:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To the mailing list:
Al-Manahel Newsletter List
is all set. Thanks for subscribing!
Date of this subscription: Sun May 6 03:07:05 2007
Please save this email message for future reference.
-
The removal of the email address:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>From the mailing list:
Al-Manahel Newsletter List
is all set.
Date of this removal: Tue May 8 21:33:07 2007
Please save this email message for future reference.
--
#
# bts-link upstream status pull for source package gcc-snapshot
# see http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2006/05/msg1.html
#
user [EMAIL PROTECTED]
# remote status report for #414136
# * http://gcc.gnu.org/PR31095
# * remote status changed: UNCONFIRMED -> NEW
usertags 414136 -
The removal of the email address:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>From the mailing list:
Al-Manahel Newsletter List
is all set.
Date of this removal: Sun May 6 10:05:08 2007
Please save this email message for future reference.
--
The removal of the email address:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>From the mailing list:
Al-Manahel Newsletter List
is all set.
Date of this removal: Fri May 4 14:06:38 2007
Please save this email message for future reference.
--
#
# bts-link upstream status pull for source package gnat-4.1
# see http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2006/05/msg1.html
#
user [EMAIL PROTECTED]
# remote status report for #244936
# * http://gcc.gnu.org/PR15606
# * remote status changed: NEW -> REOPENED
usertags 244936 - status-
On Sat, May 05, 2007 at 12:42:30AM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> Argh, sorry. As Aurelien just pointed out, gcc-multilib has the missing
> files.
Just to confirm, is this supposed to be added to the build dependencies
of packages needing cross build support? I'd been assuming that this
was a t
--- Comment #4 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-05-11 21:51 ---
There doesn't seem to be another way to get this to work, than the proposed way
with extra basic blocks. The things I've tried either break gcc, or gdb, or
debug info. Unassigning.
--
steven at gcc dot gnu dot o
24 matches
Mail list logo
