On Tue, 6 Aug 2002, Jan-Hendrik Palic wrote:
PPC packages of gcc-3.2 can be found here no problems by building
...
Building libstlport withit works, too
Chris, now I'm starting to build it on MIPS, too ;)
I'm glad that you beat me to it :-) I didn't get the chance to start
It's probably binutils. Expect another upload (of 15-1) in the next
24hrs.
C
On Thu, 1 Aug 2002, Jack Howarth wrote:
What happened to the gcc 3.1.1 build on debian ppc sid? It looks
horribly broken from the log. I ask because I built locally a
gcc 3.1.1 package using the previous pre3
As a short followup, I've had reports that the DAC960 driver compiles
correctly with gcc-3.0 and one report that 3.1 works as well. I've heard
mostly rumours that other known kernel driver miscompilation problems are
also fixed in gcc 3.x. Unfortunately, I do not have a DAC960 nor any of
the
As a short followup, I've had reports that the DAC960 driver compiles
correctly with gcc-3.0 and one report that 3.1 works as well. I've heard
mostly rumours that other known kernel driver miscompilation problems are
also fixed in gcc 3.x. Unfortunately, I do not have a DAC960 nor any of
the
On Sat, 25 May 2002, Jack Howarth wrote:
Package: gcc
Version: 3.1-2
It appears that the build scripts for the gcc 3.1 package are
flawed in setting the configure paramaters. I find that when
I build this package on debian ppc sid, the resulting gcc shows
gcc -v
Reading specs from
On Tue, 21 May 2002, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
Add:
FLAGS_TO_PASS = $(AM_MAKEFLAGS)
to libstdc++/Makefile.am. I posted about this last week, but Matthias
has been busy, I think.
He's been on holiday :-) If he isn't totally back for a day or two more,
I'll see if I can fix this for him so
On Mon, 20 May 2002, Maarten den Braber wrote:
[ i'm not subscribed to this list, i would greatly appreciate it if you
could CC your reply to me. thanks! ]
Hi,
Recently I bought a second-hand Sun JavaStation NC. I would like to run
a custom 2.4 kernel on it so I need to compile a
On Mon, 20 May 2002, Maarten den Braber wrote:
I've also experimented with toolchain, but couldn't find out which one
(following README.cross or using toolchain) was the way to go. So I
haven't explored that road any further.
About binutils-sparc: can't I use the one provided in the disto
On Thu, 9 May 2002, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
Yep, I managed to cross-build everything to alpha from x86 and then it
even compiled itself a few times. it was only trying to compile some
auxiliary Ada programs where we ran into problems.
Ah, ok. Can you send me the binaries for the built Ada
On Mon, 6 May 2002, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
and similar for m68k. Alpha appears to build, but once I try a native
make bootstrap, I get a segmentation fault:
Hmmm...I may be making a binutils upload very soon with some fixes that
may affect this. Any chance I could impose on you to try again
Thanks for this (glad I read the rest of the thread before asking for it
:-P). I've already got some new prelim binutils packages built, so I'll
give a shot here first with those and with CVS to see if anything changes.
I'll also try a cross-compiler setup from one of the other 64-bit
platforms
On Tue, 12 Mar 2002, Matthias Klose wrote:
please send a patch. I don't have access on an alpha and cannot easily
see the layout. Or maybe Chris could give it a try?
I can try, but am VERY tight on time this week and possibly next. Adam,
if you can look at it, please do. If you run into a
On Fri, 1 Mar 2002, Erich Schubert wrote:
Package: gcc-3.0
Version: 1:3.0.4-1
Severity: normal
Shouldn't gcc-3.0 be an alternative for cc? maybe for gcc too?
/usr/bin/cc is provided by gcc, but not by gcc-3.0 ?
The short answer is no, gcc is just package built from gcc-defaults that
On Fri, 15 Feb 2002, Scott Venier wrote:
any chance you have a similar patch to qlogicisp.c? I'm getting a panic
on line 1047 (in 2.4.17's version of qlogicisp.c). Though, I also got
that panic using gcc 2.95.2, but not using gcc 2.96 (not sure which
particular one).
I don't know much
Oops...my error...3.0.4 debs for powerpc aren't in incoming yet. I'm
building the snapshot now, though.
C
On Wed, 30 Jan 2002, Lukas Geyer wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jan 2002, Matthias Klose wrote:
Please could you recheck with gcc-3.0, and if this version doesn't fix
it, with the recently
On Tue, 29 Jan 2002, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
On Mon, Jan 28, 2002 at 05:52:40PM +0200, Alexei Khlebnikov wrote:
Hello all.
I have a problem: my shared library cannot be linked, because it's too big
(all objs are 140 megs in size). I compile sources with -g option. As I
On Sat, 5 Jan 2002, Matthias Klose wrote:
Christopher C. Chimelis writes:
Speaking of bugs, can you take back 126162? I've
fixed my part of it already and the ball's back in your court.
unsure, who gets the ball, but not me/gcc. I tried to build an old
gcc-3.0.2 debian package
On Sat, 22 Dec 2001, Ben Collins wrote:
Which files? The compiler binaries themselves (gcc, cc1, etc) should be
sparc32. The libraries would be 64-bit. I just checked the binutils on
vore and it does report supporting elf64_sparc, so that message
shouldn't happen. Oh wait! binutils-multiarch
On Fri, 7 Dec 2001, Matthias Klose wrote:
Back from vacation, suffering from the jetlag ... preparing a
gcc-3.0.3 upload for unstable. Currently scanning my mailbox for
patches. Anything else, which should be included? I'm asking, because
my unstable environment has been deleted during my
On Wed, 28 Nov 2001, Martin v. Loewis wrote:
I think there are still problems compiling glibc with gcc 3; glibc
will claim to export symbols from libgcc, when it really can't (since
the symbols in libgcc_s won't be incorporated into glibc). I believe
there are patches circulating to solve
On Tue, 27 Nov 2001, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
As with that bug, no, GCC should complain about dollars starting
identifiers. Try using b$c instead of $b.
Oddly enough, our powerpc gcc packages have --no-dollars-in-identifiers
enabled by default, despite gas having no problems handling things
On Tue, 27 Nov 2001, Martin v. Loewis wrote:
According to the GCC documentation, the rationale for this feature is
that traditional C allows it, but ISO C and ISO C++ disallow it.
So I'd say that, if all Debian packages either build fine without it,
or enable it when needed, turning it off
On Tue, 27 Nov 2001, Martin v. Loewis wrote:
That isn't really true, is it? Atleast in the NTFS code, I cannot find
such code (and I can't remember writing it, either :-).
Hehehe...I seem to remember seeing such code in the kernel source, but
that was some time ago and I haven't looked for it
On Tue, 27 Nov 2001, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
I could have sworn it was NTFS...
util.h:
typedef enum {
FILE_$Mft = 0,
FILE_$MftMirr = 1,
etc.
I'm fairly certain that DOLLARS_IN_IDENTIFIERS affects the legality of
that enum.
Yes, it does and you're correct.
On Tue, 27 Nov 2001, John R. Daily wrote:
I haven't seen any reponse from Ben, so I'm going to go ahead and
move the bug to glibc. It would be rather unfortunate if this
isn't fixed for woody, but at this point that may be impossible.
Ok. I'll work it out with him when he gets back from
On Tue, 27 Nov 2001, Martin v. Loewis wrote:
Unlikely. The original gdb backtrace indicated that somebody was
jumping to address 0. I think potential causes are:
1. dynamic initialization of a shared library has not been carried
out. It would be interesting to verify that all shared
On Wed, 28 Nov 2001, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
The followup to #120333 indicates this is a bug with g++; is anyone
looking into this? i see no discussing on debian-gcc about it, but i'm
reluctant to simply reassign it to gcc.
I'm trying to get to it :-) It looks very similar to an EH problem
On Mon, 26 Nov 2001, Bill Allombert wrote:
gcc by default allows dollars in identifiers on i386.
Unfortunately, the assembler does not like them.
I'll spare the explanation of why the assembler barfs (since I'm assuming
that it's as obvious to everyone else as it is to me), but Bill's correct
On Mon, 26 Nov 2001, Guido Guenther wrote:
Could you check the source code if these packages crash while messing
with C++ exceptions? I just had a quick look into the menu package and
it seems that C++ exception handling is broken on mips using g++-2.95.4.
A testcase like:
#include
On Mon, 26 Nov 2001, Martin v. Loewis wrote:
Could you kindly elaborate a little? I assume one problem is that $
indicates literal values to the assembler, as in
movl$.LC1, (%esp)
That explains why dollars at the beginning of identifiers are not
acceptable. It doesn't explain
On Fri, 23 Nov 2001, Gerhard Tonn wrote:
All architectures except powerpc and hppa are using it. The s390 version
seems also to work.
Ok...meant to ask about testing it on s390 (since I have most of the other
archs already :-P), but you covered that. I'll see what I can do either
tomorrow
On Wed, 21 Nov 2001, Gerhard Tonn wrote:
is someone going to upload a new version of gcc-3.0 as long as Matthias is on
vacation? If yes, could you apply the fix from bug report 120452. It is a
trivial fix to reenable shared libgcc for s390. If not, will anybody mind if
I a do a source NMU
BTW, has someone tested the current gcc-3.0 package with a shared
libgcc? I seem to remember a discussion about it not working somehow, but
can't remember the context or result.
C
On Wed, 21 Nov 2001, Gerhard Tonn wrote:
Hi,
is someone going to upload a new version of gcc-3.0 as long as
On Tue, 20 Nov 2001, Jason Williams wrote:
'lo, sorry to bother you.
gcc 2.x compiles C++ source files fine, but gcc-3.0 doesn't. (g++-3.0 seems
to work okay). Is this a deliberate change?
(trying to compile C++ with gcc-3.0 fails with undefined references to
new and delete)
I haven't
On Tue, 20 Nov 2001, Jason Williams wrote:
Fair enough; it's just that old gcc never seemed to require that.
Presumably I was incorrect in relying on that behaviour.
I believe that it is incorrect to rely on that. It's possible that the
new operator was contained in libgcc in 2.95.4, meaning
On Tue, 20 Nov 2001, Phil Edwards wrote:
All true. Just as an addendum: if a user only needs support code (new,
delete, etc) and doesn't feel like linking against the full libstdc++,
the support code also exists in a separate library, libsupc++.
On Fri, 16 Nov 2001, John R. Daily wrote:
If glibc is to be believed (/usr/include/limits.h), gcc should
be defining __WORDSIZE.
gcc versions 2.95, 2.96, and 3.0 have been tested; none of
them seem to define it.
As it is, there doesn't seem to be a good way to distinguish
32 bit from
On Fri, 16 Nov 2001, John R. Daily wrote:
I should have provided more information. The bits/wordsize.h is
included in a part of the file that is excluded for __GNUC__ = 2.
I should've looked closer :-) I totally missed the #if's around it :-)
You're right...according to the comment, it
On 2 Nov 2001, Brian Nelson wrote:
I've been trying out gcc-3.0 (3.0.2) with some little Qt apps that I
wrote. The code compiles fine, but fails with tons of undefined
references Qwhatever objects when trying to link.
All is well, however, when linking with 2.95.4.
What's the problem?
'preferred' by whom? I think that this should be controlled by
sysadmin. The whole 'alternatives' system for making easy
for sysadmin to change defaults. Why gcc is exception?
ld and as are exceptions as well.
use the system compiler to build libfoo, change the system compiler to
On Tue, 9 Oct 2001, Mike Lewis wrote:
I'm trying to track down libstdc++2.9 for alpha, which doesn't seem to
exist. There's 2.8 and 2.10, but no 2.9. I need to run code that I
unfortunately don't have the source for, and it wants
libstdc++-libc6.1-1.so.2
I don't have a copy of libstdc++
On Wed, 3 Oct 2001, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
Oh, there's a release schedule. It's not due out till April, though.
I agree.
Plenty of time, then. Also, seems like it won't even bootstrap right now
(hence the flood of messages under the relevant threads), so we have the
time to get an
On Tue, 2 Oct 2001, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
I'm also very reluctant to package Ada at the same time as the main GCC
snapshots because it requires Ada installed to build. Others might
argue with me on that point, though.
I agree with the above. If GNAT isn't already compiled on an
On Tue, 2 Oct 2001, Matthias Klose wrote:
you can turn off any language in the debian/rules files you want. or
do you argue that a bootstrap would fail, if no ada compiler already
exists for the platform?
If my understanding of how they're accomplishing the merge is correct, it
can be
On Wed, 19 Sep 2001, Richard Reich wrote:
Debian GCC maintainers,
I'm trying to build gcc on my home box, I did apt-get source gcc and
also got a few others, I also did apt-get build-dep gcc. I'm still
getting an error.
the command I execute to compile gcc is...
./debian/rules
On Tue, 28 Aug 2001, Randolph Chung wrote:
On Debian/hppa, we have 32 or 64 bit kernels, but userspace is always 32
bit (sorta like sparc aiui). As such, there's a need for a
hppa32-hppa64 cross-compiler.
Right now there is no such package in Debian yet; the hppa porters use a
tarball
On Thu, 26 Jul 2001, Petr Vandrovec wrote:
Why not have the kernel Makefile pass -flimit-inline=1 explicitly?
Because of I see no reason for breaking documented behavior - also my
He's got a point here. The documentation says that the inlining limit
default is 1. I'll have to
Package: gcc-2.95
Version: 0.010703
Severity: critical
Apparently, the new gcc-gas-hidden patch isn't correct, or rather, isn't
complete. As it stands, gcc will not bootstrap with that patch applied.
The change needed to make this patch work involves possibly changing the
C++ ABI, since we're
On Mon, 23 Jul 2001, Matthias Klose wrote:
I don't like the current situation. we have a gcc version in woody
that should be removed and version in sid, which doesn't
propagate.
What's the hold-up on the sid-woody move for gcc-3.0 (I haven't seen
update-excuses yet)? I can't think of any
Ack! Didn't realise that we still weren't including that patch
Well, I'm trying to compile WITH the patch again :-P Either way, I'll
figure this out...
C
On Tue, 17 Jul 2001, Christopher C. Chimelis wrote:
Oops...forgot to cc the list :-P
-- Forwarded message
On Mon, 16 Jul 2001, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
I don't get it. Are you getting an ICE or a segfault in binutils?
Segfault when I run 'strip -g' twice on the same binary (usually an object
file from an ar archive). Any readelf/objcopy/etc on that file after
the first run of strip segfaults
On Mon, 25 Jun 2001, Matthias Klose wrote:
funny report. what do you expect? please provide the relevant source
as documented in /usr/share/doc/gcc-3.0/README.Bugs.gz.
I'm Gabor Lenart from Hungary and we're developing a movie player software
for Linux. We tried to compile and
On Mon, 18 Jun 2001, Martini de La Rosso wrote:
is the package on the way ?
(final i mean)
Nothing like giving us a bit of time to work on it, eh? :-P Just
kidding. There's one problem to solve in the Debian parts that I know of
(which will close about 8 duplicate bug reports). Other
On Mon, 18 Jun 2001, Matthias Klose wrote:
here we go ... The packages are in incoming, built for i386, hppa
patch checked, libgcc symlink corrected.
known issues:
- doxygen segfaults generating the libstdc++-v3 docs (1.3.6 worked
ok). results in an empty html_user dir.
- the
On Fri, 15 Jun 2001, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
On Fri, Jun 15, 2001 at 09:34:36PM -0700, Evan Prodromou wrote:
By the way, there -is- a libgcc_s available:
---8---
evan priss:~/tmp$ find /usr/lib -name *libgcc_s*
/usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-linux/3.0/libgcc_s.so
---8---
Suggestions
On Fri, 15 Jun 2001, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
I'll check, but the GCC_SONAME wasn't modified, which is what the link was
originally based on. I am currently trying to figure out if we can grep
or awk it out of a file some place rather than hard-coding it in the
rules scripts...
Given
On 15 May 2001, Andrew 'ashridah' Pilley wrote:
heh. okay. the topic's ambiguous. i apoligize
if you have any comments on this, please read
on, it's basically a question concerning debian's
position between 2.95/2.96 and 3.0. if you're sick
of hearing about it. stop reading now, flame me,
On Tue, 1 May 2001, Matthias Klose wrote:
In addition to needing hppa gcc debs I also need to do hppa64 cross
compiler
debs(mostly for building 64bit kernels). I am hoping to use the GCC_TARGET
environment variable thing in the 3.0 package but haven't started working
on
it
On Wed, 11 Apr 2001, Jan Gregor wrote:
I moved to debian potato last month from redhat 6.1 . I think I found
bug in gcc which influence kernel. First I used kernel 2.2.18pre21
from potato. Sometimes after loading from lilo and showing
uncompressing linux ... my computer halts. When I
On Tue, 3 Apr 2001, Ben Collins wrote:
For the first time I was able to compile the gcc-3.0 CVS and build glibc
2.2.3pre1 with it on sparc-linux. Even more so, there were no errors
from the glibc make check, and the library installed without any
problems.
Woohoo! That's good news for my
On Thu, 29 Mar 2001, Christopher C. Chimelis wrote:
Am I the only one who has problems building -9? It really builds
fine, but something's going wrong during packaging in rules2. Just
curious...here's the error:
A quick follow-up...
Seems to work fine if I just use the 'binary' target, so
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,
On Thu, 15 Mar 2001, Matthias Klose wrote:
I would prepare a new release on this Saturday.
Ok. I'll see if I can get a new upload by Friday night :-)
Btw, I have been told, that an upload to testing unstable doesn't
work. Uploads that should go to testing should simply have a higher
On Wed, 14 Mar 2001, Ben Collins wrote:
I've added the patch from Franz to the 2.95 CVS. This is required for
glibc to be buildable again.
Matthias, can you do a release of gcc-2.95 with this patch, or should I?
I can do native builds for i386, ppc, sparc, arm and mips. It'll
take a few
64 matches
Mail list logo
