Your message dated Mon, 11 Jun 2001 14:15:44 -0700
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#100535: gcc-3.0-20010610 refuses to compile correct
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.)
Darren Benham
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--------------------------------------
Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 11 Jun 2001 20:36:19 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Jun 11 15:36:19 2001
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from klecker.debian.org [::ffff:198.186.203.20]
by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 1 (Debian))
id 159YQ6-0008MD-00; Mon, 11 Jun 2001 15:36:18 -0500
Received: from zikova.cvut.cz [147.32.235.100]
by klecker.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 1 (Debian))
id 159YQ0-0007m3-00; Mon, 11 Jun 2001 13:36:12 -0700
Received: from vana.vc.cvut.cz ([EMAIL PROTECTED] [147.32.240.58])
by zikova.cvut.cz (8.9.0.Beta5/8.9.0.Beta5) with ESMTP id XAA23222
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Mon, 11 Jun 2001 23:25:44 +0200
Received: from vana.vc.cvut.cz ([EMAIL PROTECTED] [127.0.0.1])
by localhost (8.12.0.Beta10/8.12.0.Beta10/Debian 8.12.0.Beta10) with
ESMTP id f5BKXdXr020136
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Mon, 11 Jun 2001 22:33:40 +0200
Received: (from [EMAIL PROTECTED])
by vana.vc.cvut.cz (8.12.0.Beta10/8.12.0.Beta10/Debian 8.12.0.Beta10)
id f5BKXdLw020119
for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Mon, 11 Jun 2001 22:33:39 +0200
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 22:33:33 +0200
From: Petr Vandrovec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: gcc-3.0-20010610 refuses to compile correct (?) code
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.18i
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Package: gcc-3.0
Version: 3.0-0pre010609
Hi,
gcc_3.0-3.0-0pre010609 refuses to compile Linux kernel
because of it does not treat following code as correct
anymore. gcc-2.95.4-20010604 and gcc-3.0-20010426 both
compile this code without any complaints.
-------
#include <sys/time.h>
extern struct timeval xtime;
volatile struct timeval xtime;
-------
vana:~$ gcc -c -W -Wall xx.c
xx.c:5: conflicting types for `xtime'
xx.c:3: previous declaration of `xtime'
vana:~$ gcc-2.95 -c -W -Wall xx.c
vana:~$
Thanks,
Petr Vandrovec
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------
Received: (at 100535-done) by bugs.debian.org; 11 Jun 2001 21:16:48 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Jun 11 16:16:48 2001
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from gateway-1237.mvista.com (nevyn.them.org) [::ffff:12.44.186.158]
by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 1 (Debian))
id 159Z3I-0002ee-00; Mon, 11 Jun 2001 16:16:48 -0500
Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.22 #1 (Debian))
id 159Z2G-0001kI-00; Mon, 11 Jun 2001 14:15:44 -0700
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 14:15:44 -0700
From: Daniel Jacobowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Petr Vandrovec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Bug#100535: gcc-3.0-20010610 refuses to compile correct
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.16i
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; from [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Mon, Jun 11, 2001
at 11:02:22PM +0000
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, Jun 11, 2001 at 11:02:22PM +0000, Petr Vandrovec wrote:
> On 11 Jun 01 at 13:58, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
>
> > > gcc_3.0-3.0-0pre010609 refuses to compile Linux kernel
> > > because of it does not treat following code as correct
> > > anymore. gcc-2.95.4-20010604 and gcc-3.0-20010426 both
> > > compile this code without any complaints.
> > >
> > > -------
> > > #include <sys/time.h>
> > >
> > > extern struct timeval xtime;
> > >
> > > volatile struct timeval xtime;
> > > -------
> >
> > I'd call that a kernel bug. The extern definition is substantially
> > worse than useless without the volatile keyword present in it!
>
> Alan Cox just told me that he applied my patch to kernel, so gcc
> maintainer can just close this bug. Or can I do that myself?
You can - just mail to <bug>-done. I did it, though.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz Debian GNU/Linux Developer
Monta Vista Software Debian Security Team
