Package: src:openjdk-23
Version: 23~6ea-1
Severity: important
Tags: sid
X-DebBugs-CC: debian-mips@lists.debian.org
openjdk-23 ftbfs on mips64el:
[...]
Compiling up to 138 files for jdk.jdeps
Executing: [/usr/lib/jvm/java-22-openjdk-mips64el/bin/java -Xms64M
-Xmx1600M -Duser.language=en
Control: tags -1 + moreinfo
I'm not looking into that, CCing the ports maintainers. Sure, we can
disable running the tests on mips64el.
On 19.11.23 11:18, Sebastian Ramacher wrote:
Source: gcc-13
Version: 13.2.0-6
Severity: serious
Tags: ftbfs
Justification: fails to build from source (but
Package: src:llvm-toolchain-17
Version: 1:17.0.5-1
Severity: important
Tags: sid trixie
X-Debbugs-CC: debian-mips@lists.debian.org
see
https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=llvm-toolchain-17=mips64el=1%3A17.0.3-1%7Eexp1=1697551933=1
FAILED:
Control: severity -1 important
these bootstrap comparison failures are now ignored on mipsel, reducing the
severity of the issue.
Package: src:gcc-13
Version: 13.1.0-5
Severity: serious
Tags: sid trixie
X-Debbugs-CC: debian-mips@lists.debian.org
gcc-13 ftbfs on mipsel:
[...]
Bootstrap comparison failure!
gcc/rust/rust-macro-builtins.o differs
gcc/rust/rust-session-manager.o differs
gcc/rust/rust-cfg-parser.o differs
On 02.01.23 12:41, Matthias Klose wrote:
On 31.12.22 14:00, Nick Clifton via Binutils wrote:
Hi Everyone,
The 2.40 branch has now been created:
git clone git://sourceware.org/git/binutils-gdb.git -b
binutils-2_40-branch
A snapshot of the sources is also available here
On 27.06.22 13:37, Nick Clifton via Binutils wrote:
Hi Guys,
OK, so the plan is that the branch for the 2.39 release will be
cut on Friday July 8th (just before I go on vacation). All being
well the release itself will happen in the first weekend of August
(Sat 6th probably).
On 23.06.22 12:07, Nick Clifton wrote:
Hi Matthias,
Debian and Ubuntu are using the current trunk for the releases in development.
There's currently one issue that I'm aware of:
https://bugs.debian.org/1013244
Is there a corresponding binutils PR for this ?
No, not yet.
Would the
Control: tags -1 + moreinfo
is this something that should be better done like for hppa?
Link time optimizations are an optimization that helps with a single digit
percent number optimizing both for smaller size, and better speed. These
optimizations are available for some time now in GCC. Link time optimizations
are also at least turned on in other distros like Fedora, OpenSuse
Package: src:debugedit
Version: 1:5.0-1
Severity: important
Tags: sid bookworm
X-Debbugs-CC: debian-mips@lists.debian.org
Forwarded: https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28599
debugedit shows some test failures on mips64el:
Control: tags -1 - patch
Control: tags -1+ moreinfo
On 3/2/21 6:05 PM, Olek Wojnar wrote:
> Package: openjdk-11-jre-headless
> Version: 11.0.11+4-1
> Severity: important
> Tags: patch
> Control: affects -1 bazel-bootstrap
>
> Dear OpenJDK Maintainers,
>
> This bug report is a follow-up to the
On 2/15/21 1:40 AM, Olek Wojnar wrote:
> Done! [1] Unfortunately, I don't see anything useful there but perhaps one
> of you will.
>
> -Olek
>
> [1]
> https://gist.githubusercontent.com/olekw/32e54c0829d739e8fa88893a853c0fa8/raw/b2fce4d2ab77555a3d28c22441f1de3cb2d99f38/bazel-bootstrap-zero-jre
[also forwarding to the Debian mips porters]
On 2/12/21 10:26 PM, Olek Wojnar wrote:
> Hello Java Team and OpenJDK Team,
>
> I'm hesitant to start filing potentially serious bugs at this point in the
> release cycle so please let me know if there's something I'm missing in
> this situation.
>
>
On 12/1/20 5:02 AM, YunQiang Su wrote:
> I am sorry for the later response.
>Hi,
>
> I am an active porter for the following architectures and I intend
> to continue this for the lifetime of the Bullseye release (est. end
> of 2024):
>
> For mipsel and mips64el, I
> - test most
On 10/15/20 5:00 PM, Simon McVittie wrote:
> Package: dwz
> Version: 0.13-5
> Severity: normal
> Tags: ftbfs
> X-Debbugs-Cc: binut...@packages.debian.org, debian-mips@lists.debian.org
> Control: affects -1 + src:dbus-python
>
> During the binNMUs to add Python 3.9 support, dbus-python_1.2.16-3+b1
On 9/12/20 8:55 AM, Vasyl Gello wrote:
> Hi Matthias!
>
> On Fri, 11 Sep 2020 12:50:33 +0200 Matthias Klose wrote:
>> Control: severity -1 important
>>
>> lowering the severity, please use the BFD linker if possible, CCing to the
>> mips
>> porters.
&g
Control: severity -1 important
lowering the severity, please use the BFD linker if possible, CCing to the mips
porters.
On 9/9/20 9:50 AM, Vasyl Gello wrote:
> Package: binutils
> Version: 2.35-2
> Severity: serious
> Justification: Policy 2.35-2
> X-Debbugs-Cc: mat...@debian.org,
Hi,
with elfutils 0.180, I disabled some mips patches which didn't apply anymore,
and then forgot about them for the upload.
mips_readelf_w.patch
0001-Ignore-differences-between-mips-machine-identifiers.patch
0002-Add-support-for-mips64-abis-in-mips_retval.c.patch
Debian bullseye will be based on a gcc-10 package taken from the gcc-10 upstream
branch, and binutils based on a binutils package taken from the 2.35 branch.
I'm planning to make gcc-10 the default after gcc-10 (10.2.0) is available
(upstream targets mid July). binutils will be updated before
On 5/7/20 9:41 PM, Paul Gevers wrote:
> Hi
>
> On 02-05-2020 21:53, Paul Gevers wrote:
>> I don't think anybody likes to do it, but we have to discuss the
>> architectures that will be part of bullseye. In the before last IRC
>> meeting I promised I would send this mail, so here we go. Let's see
On 3/24/20 1:13 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Mar 2020 08:33:55 +0100 Matthias Klose wrote:
>> Package: ftp.debian.org
>>
>> Please remove gcc-8, gcc-8-cross and gcc-8-cross-ports. superseded by gcc-9
>>
>>
> Removed gcc-8-cross and gcc-8-cross-p
On 27.12.19 18:35, Julien Puydt wrote:
> Package: g++-9
> Version: 9.2.1-21
>
> I have a package which fails to build on both Debian armel and mipsel
> with this g++ package, and with the same error:
> /usr/bin/ld: ./.libs/libfplll.so: undefined reference to
> `__atomic_store_8'
> /usr/bin/ld:
Control: severity -1 important
On 01.12.19 06:12, YunQiang Su wrote:
> YunQiang Su 于2019年11月30日周六 上午11:19写道：
>>
>> YunQiang Su 于2019年11月29日周五 下午2:21写道：
>>>
>>> 在 2019-11-29五的 07:00 +0100，Matthias Klose写道：
>>>> On 28.11.19 18:09, YunQiang Su wrote:
On 28.11.19 18:09, YunQiang Su wrote:
> Matthias Klose 于2019年11月28日周四 下午5:51写道：
>>
>> On 28.11.19 10:44, Matthias Klose wrote:
>>> Package: src:gcc-9
>>> Version: 9.2.1-20
>>> Severity: serious
>>> Tags: sid bullseye
>>>
>>> g
On 27.09.19 12:48, Dmitry Shachnev wrote:
It looks like it is already fixed upstream:
https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/gcc?view=revision=273174
So please backport that change to the Debian package.
The Debian MIPS maintainers should get this backported upstream, then it get's
updated in the
On 05.09.19 11:41, YunQiang Su wrote:
Matthias Klose 于2019年9月4日周三 下午1:46写道：
Hi,
I will stop building the mipsel and mips64el cross packages from the binutils,
gcc-8-cross, gcc-9-cross, gcc-defaults, cross-toolchain-base packages. There is
Thank you for your great work on cross toolchains
Hi,
I will stop building the mipsel and mips64el cross packages from the binutils,
gcc-8-cross, gcc-9-cross, gcc-defaults, cross-toolchain-base packages. There is
infrastructure to build these cross compilers from the binutils-mipsen,
gcc-8-cross-mipsen, gcc-9-cross-mipsen,
On 20.08.19 15:17, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> Dear release team,
>
> On 2019-07-20 12:46, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
>> Dear all,
>>
>> The mips architecture, supporting 32-bit big-endian MIPS CPUs, has
>> been supported in Debian for more than 15 years. Due to the limited 2GB
>> virtual address space
GCC 9 was released earlier this year, it is now available in Debian
testing/unstable. I am planning to do the defaults change in mid August, around
the time of the expected first GCC 9 point release (9.2.0).
There are only soname changes for rather unused shared libraries (libgo)
involved, and
On 08.01.19 21:08, Paul Gevers wrote:
> user debian...@lists.debian.org
> usertags needs-update
> thanks
>
> Hi all,
>
> On Sat, 29 Dec 2018 23:46:40 +0100 Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
>> During a rebuild of all packages in sid, your package failed to build
>> on amd64.
>>
>> Relevant part
It looks like I spent to much time uploading the various -mipsen toolchain
packages up to the release of buster, not seeing much involvement by the mips
porters / toolchain maintainers. For bullseye, I'll not touch these packages
anymore, so others should take responsibility for maintaining these
The recent gcc-8 and gcc-9 uploads to unstable are now built using pgo and lto
optimization. Not on all architectures, see debian/rules.defs. On the plus
side the compilers are 7-10% faster, however the build time of the compiler is
much longer, adding 10-20 hours. If people feel that this
On 13.04.19 17:01, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> On 15371 March 1977, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
>
>>> How is the move to debian-ports supposed to happen? I won't have the
>>> time to do anything about it within the 2 weeks.
>
>> The process to inject all packages to debian-ports is to get all the
>> deb,
On 07.07.18 17:24, YunQiang Su wrote:
> Niels Thykier 于2018年6月28日周四 上午4:06写道：
>> List of concerns for architectures
>> ==
>>
>> The following is a summary from the current architecture qualification
>> table.
>>
>> * Concern for ppc64el and s390x: we are dependent
On 04.08.2018 16:37, Paul Boddie wrote:
> Package: binutils-mipsel-linux-gnu
> Version: 2.28-5
> Severity: normal
>
> Dear Maintainer,
>
> I have been trying to cross-compile glibc using the mipsel-linux-gnu
> cross-toolchains but the outcome is always the same:
the glibc cross build works,
GCC 8 is available in testing/unstable, and upstream is approaching the first
point release. I am planning to make GCC 8 the default at the end of the week
(gdc and gccgo already point to GCC 8). Most runtime libraries built from GCC
are already used in the version built from GCC 8, so I don't
According to [1], binutils 2.31 (currently in experimental) will branch in about
a week, and I'll plan to upload the branch version to unstable. Test results
are reported to [2], these look reasonable, except for the various mips targets,
however as seen in the past, it doesn't make a
Control: severity -1 important
This is now fixed in the packages, however it is not yet applied upstream to GCC
trunk, and not backported.
I intend to pull the final patch from the binutils upstream once it is accepted,
trying to avoid to keep an unapproved patch for a release architecture.
Control: severity -1 normal
Control: tags -1 + help
please ask the mips porters for help, or ask for the removal of the package.
Cheers, Matthias
On 11.10.2016 11:11, Hilko Bengen wrote:
> Package: openjdk-8-jdk
> Version: 8u102-b14.1-2
> Severity: grave
>
> Dear Maintainer,
>
> I just got a
Control: tags -1 + help
Please find out why libgo isn't configured to use libffi.
On 29.09.2016 12:30, Martín Ferrari wrote:
> Package: libgo9
> Version: 6.2.0-4
> Severity: normal
>
> Hi,
>
> Recently, I modified golang-goprotobuf to use gccgo in non-native go arches,
> and found that it
On 20.09.2016 23:46, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> On 09/20/2016 11:16 PM, Niels Thykier wrote:
>>- powerpc: No porter (RM blocker)
>
> I'd be happy to pick up powerpc to keep it for Stretch. I'm already
> maintaining powerpcspe which is very similar to powerpc.
No, you are not
On 15.09.2016 22:43, Helge Deller wrote:
> Hi Matthias,
>
> On 10.09.2016 00:48, Matthias Klose wrote:
>> While the Debian Release team has some citation about the quality of the
>> toolchain on their status page, it is not one of the release criteria
>> documented
&
On 10.09.2016 09:59, Paul Gevers wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 10-09-16 00:48, Matthias Klose wrote:
>> - fpc not available on powerpc anymore (may have changed recently)
>
> For whatever it is worth, this was finally fixed this week. It is
> missing on mips*, ppc64el and s390
While the Debian Release team has some citation about the quality of the
toolchain on their status page, it is not one of the release criteria documented
by the release team. I'd like to document the status how I do understand it for
some of the toolchains available in Debian.
I appreciate that
Package: src:binutils
Version: 2.27-1
Severity: important
Tags: sid stretch
gold fails to link, see at least
https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=binutils=all=2.27-1=1470579877
Package: src:openjdk-8
Version:
Severity: serious
Tags: sid stretch moreinfo
According to the build logs, openjdk-8 fails to configure on mips and mips64el:
https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=openjdk-8
I'm thinking to just disable openjdk builds on the mips* platforms. The feedback
Package: src:gcc-6
Version: 6-20160103-1
Severity: serious
Tags: sid stretch
Forwarded: https://gcc.gnu.org/PR69129
X-Debbugs-CC: debian-mips@lists.debian.org
See https://gcc.gnu.org/PR69129, and once this is resolved, try to enable the
gnat build.
This fails to build since July 2015
Control: severity -1 important
Control: tags -1 + help
On 06.10.2015 21:37, Felix Geyer wrote:
Control: severity -1 serious
No. It doesn't make it unusable without that option.
Would be nice if the mips c porters could handle this.
On Wed, 23 Sep 2015 21:59:32 +0200 Aurelien Jarno
Control: severity -1 wishlist
Control: tags -1 + help
On 09/11/2015 10:11 PM, Jurica Stanojkovic wrote:
> Package: gcc-5
> Version: 5.2.1-15
> Severity: serious
> Tags: sid
> User: debian-mips@lists.debian.org
>
> Package gcc-5_5.2.1-15 is causing following issue during package
> pygccjit_0.4-4
On 09/03/2015 08:53 AM, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
> Le 03/09/2015 00:39, Matthias Klose a écrit :
>
>> I disagree. Please revert mips/mipsel back to gcj, or fix the mips/mipsel
>> builds
>> for openjdk-8 (and for openjdk-9). The other alternative would be not to
>>
On 09/01/2015 11:21 PM, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
> Le 29/07/2015 16:36, tmanc...@debian.org a écrit :
>
>> Any concerns with an upload of java-commons to experimental sooner than
>> September?
>
> I uploaded java-commons/0.53 to experimental with the switch to
> openjdk-8. I plan to switch sid in
On 06/29/2015 07:57 PM, YunQiang Su wrote:
On Mon, 22 Jun 2015 19:02:29 +0200 Geert Stappers stapp...@stappers.nl
wrote:
Control: retitle -1 gcc-5-mips-32-fpxx
Control: tag -1 patch
Any consider of this patch?
Please could somebody clarify, if this bumps hardware requirements to newer
On 07/02/2015 02:11 PM, Matthew Fortune wrote:
With this change in place then I would hope you can move to binutils 2.25,
, glibc 2.21 and kernel headers 4.1 if this has not already happened. It is
important that glibc is rebuilt after all the other changes so that
all the new forwards
Package: src:gcc-5
Version: 5-20150327-1
Severity: important
Tags: sid stretch
Forwarded: https://gcc.gnu.org/PR65618
seen building trunk 20150328. I'm not entirely sure if this is a regression.
Apparently all distro builds for mips and mipsel set STAGE3_CFLAGS += -gtoggle
(same as in stage2) in
Control: tags -1 + moreinfo help
On 12/09/2014 08:46 PM, Helmut Grohne wrote:
Package: src:gcc-4.9
Version: 4.9.2-5
User: helm...@debian.org
Usertags: rebootstrap
When building a cross compiler for mips64el (and possibly other mips
architectures), some binary packages are broken.
$
Package: src:binutils
Version: 2.24.90.20141014-1
Severity: important
The testsuite shows 29 test failures on both mips and mipsel. Please could a
porter have a look?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mips-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact
debian-mips, please handle this
Am 08.08.2014 um 21:40 schrieb Julian Taylor:
Package: gfortran-4.9
Version: 4:4.9.1-1
Severity: important
gfortran miscompiles int() for negative overflows leading to a build
timeout of python-scipy, see #756905
below a testcase, according to
[forwarding to Yunqiang Su and debian-mips]
Am 29.06.2014 18:20, schrieb Helmut Grohne:
Control: reassign -1 src:binutils Control: retitle -1
mips64el-linux-gnuabi64-as defaults to N32 abi Control: tags -1 + upstream
On Sat, Jun 28, 2014 at 08:32:42PM +0200, Helmut Grohne wrote:
of where to begin.
I have a box with gcc-4.9, plenty of disk space, and electricity to burn.
Where do I start?
Patrick
On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 10:25 AM, Matthias Klose d...@debian.org wrote:
With gcc-4.9 now available in testing, it is time to prepare for the change
of
the default to 4.9
With gcc-4.9 now available in testing, it is time to prepare for the change of
the default to 4.9, for a subset of architectures or for all (release)
architectures. The defaults for the gdc, gccgo, gcj and gnat frontends already
point to 4.9 and are used on all architectures. Issue #746805
Am 16.01.2014 13:31, schrieb Aníbal Monsalve Salazar:
For mips/mipsel, I - fix toolchain issues together with other developers at
ImgTec
It is nice to see such a commitment, however in the past I didn't see any such
contributions.
Matthias
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
gcc-4.9 is uploaded to experimental, asking the porters to watch for build
failures and corresponding patches. See
https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=gcc-4.9suite=experimental
These are already fixed in the vcs.
- fixed the gospec.c ftbfs on archs without ld.gold
- fixed the g++
Am 23.11.2013 14:01, schrieb Aurelien Jarno:
The patch I sent for MIPS also mentions SPARC as it has the same
alignment constraints. That said the patch fixes zero, while SPARC is
using hotspot by default instead. Maybe using zero on SPARC is a
possibility, though it will decrease
Am 29.10.2013 17:48, schrieb Ian Jackson:
(Mind you, I have my doubts about a process which counts people
promising to do work - it sets up some rather unfortunate incentives.
I guess it's easier to judge and more prospective than a process which
attempts to gauge whether the work has been
Am 21.08.2013 20:55, schrieb YunQiang Su:
This new one won't define TARGET for control.m4 when
with_deps_on_target_arch_pkgs=yes is used.
why? TARGET is used in conditionals in the control.m4, so it has to be defined
for every cross build. Am I missing something?
the patch for
Am 03.08.2013 08:58, schrieb YunQiang Su:
Hi, I refresh this patch to 4.8.1-8
On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 11:52 PM, YunQiang Su wzss...@gmail.com wrote:
I refresh this patch with 4.8.1-6
This version patch add multilib support.
fixed some chunks and removed some chunks from the patch.
the
Control: tags -1 + help
won't work on this. please follow-up with debian-mips and/or forward and track
this issue upstream.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mips-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
Control: reassign -1 boost1.54
Am 10.07.2013 04:41, schrieb Steve M. Robbins:
Package: g++-4.8
Version: 4.8.1-6
Severity: important
Build log is here:
https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=boost1.54arch=mipselver=1.54.0-2stamp=1373243794
seems to build. and for future
Am 15.06.2013 03:22, schrieb Stephan Schreiber:
GCC-4.8 should become the default on ia64 soon; some other changes are
desirable:
- The transition of gcc-4.8/libgcc1 to libunwind8.
- A removal of the libunwind7 dependency of around 4600 packages on ia64 -
when
they are updated next time
Am 13.06.2013 21:47, schrieb Thorsten Glaser:
Matthias Klose dixit:
The Java and D frontends now default to 4.8 on all architectures, the Go
frontend stays at 4.7 until 4.8 get the complete Go 1.1 support.
I’d like to have gcj at 4.6 in gcc-defaults for m68k please,
until the 4.8 one
Am 13.06.2013 16:46, schrieb Steven Chamberlain:
Hi,
On 13/06/13 13:51, Matthias Klose wrote:
GCC 4.8 is now the default on all x86 architectures, and on all ARM
architectures (the latter confirmed by the Debian ARM porters). I did not
get
any feedback from other port maintainers, so
Am 07.05.2013 15:25, schrieb Matthias Klose:
The decision when to make GCC 4.8 the default for other architectures is
left to the Debian port maintainers.
[...]
Information on porting to GCC 4.8 from previous versions of GCC can be
found in the porting guide http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.8
Am 13.05.2013 18:07, schrieb Javier Vasquez:
On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 8:22 AM, Matthias Klose d...@debian.org wrote:
It's time to change the Java default to java7, and to drop java support on
architectures with non-working java7.
Just asking as a loongson-2f user, :-)
What makes java7
Am 13.05.2013 15:37, schrieb YunQiang Su:
Package: gcc-4.8
We are working on mips64(el) port.
The support of these architectures are finished, while multilib is still to
do.
This is the patch.
You are introducing a new configuration, separate from the existing mips64
configurations.
It's time to change the Java default to java7, and to drop java support on
architectures with non-working java7.
Patches for the transition to Java7 should be available in the BTS, mostly
submitted by James Page. Some may be still lurking around as diffs in Ubuntu
packages, apologies for that.
Package: release.debian.org
User: release.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: unblock
please unblock openjdk-7/7u3-2.1.3-1, IcedTea security release.
my goal is to get the openjdk-7 in experimental into wheezy too, however it
fails on mips only, so any help on getting the build failure
tags 680348 + moreinfo
thanks
On 05.07.2012 11:03, Axel Beckert wrote:
Package: gcc-4.6
Severity: normal
Affects: aiccu
Dear Maintainer,
gcc-4.6 failed to compile aiccu on mips (but not mipsel) with the
following error message:
../common/tun.c:69:1: internal compiler error:
On 07.05.2012 19:35, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
Matthias Klose dixit:
GCC 4.7 is now the default for x86 architectures for all frontends except
the D
frontends, including KFreeBSD and the Hurd.
How are the plans for other architectures?
I don't have plans to change any other architectures
OpenJDK 6 currently ftbfs on mips*, using gcj-4.6. Please could a mips porter
please check if gcj-4.7 from experimental is good enough to build OpenJDK 6?
gcj-4.7 won't be installed on the porter machines, so this to be done by
somebody with access to a mips machine.
Thanks, Matthias
--
To
Please have a look at the gcc-4.7 package in experimental, update patches (hurd,
kfreebsd, ARM is fixed in svn), and investigate the build failures (currently
ia64, but more will appear).
Matthias
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mips-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe.
severity 628685 important
tag 628685 help
thanks
On 05/31/2011 12:13 PM, Marco d'Itri wrote:
Package: binutils
Version: 2.21.51.20110421-3
Severity: critical
ld reliably segfaults when building udev on mips/mipsel:
Package: openjdk-7
Version: 7~b136-2.0~pre1-2
Severity: important
trying to run the java binary built in stage1
https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=openjdk-7arch=mipsver=7~b136-2.0~pre1-2stamp=1306696233
mkdir -p bootstrap
rm -f
On 04/17/2011 09:33 PM, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
On Wed, 2011-03-02 at 02:34 +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
I'll make gcc-4.5 the default for (at least some) architectures within the next
two weeks before more transitions start. GCC-4.5 is already used as the default
compiler for almost any other
On 04/26/2011 05:31 PM, Konstantinos Margaritis wrote:
On 26 April 2011 18:03, Matthias Klosed...@debian.org wrote:
I'll make GCC 4.6 the default after the release of
GCC 4.5.3, expected later this week, at least on amd64, armel, i386 and
powerpc.
Could you include armhf in the list as well?
On 04/26/2011 08:36 PM, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 04:41:23PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
On 04/26/2011 09:39 AM, Neil McGovern wrote:
I woudn't be particularly happy with that unless the gcc maintainers ok
it, and I'm still not sure that two days is also an acceptable
On 04/26/2011 09:28 PM, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 08:51:04PM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 05:03:01PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
I'll make GCC 4.6 the
default after the release of GCC 4.5.3, expected later this week, at
least on amd64, armel, i386
Here are some test results for various linux ports, ran on Debian unstable:
builds logs (except for mips) can be found at:
https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=libffisuite=experimental
i386 and amd64 look ok.
arm-unknown-linux-gnueabi:
XPASS: libffi.call/cls_longdouble.c -O0 -W -Wall
On 18.03.2011 18:49, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 05:47:55PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
mips toolchain maintenance during the squeeze release cycle was rough; same
thing seems to happen again with wheezy, or will this change?
Except the binutils issue that I agree took too
mips toolchain maintenance during the squeeze release cycle was rough; same
thing seems to happen again with wheezy, or will this change?
Current issues include:
- no reply from debian-mips on the GCC-4.5 transition questions
- gcj/gcc-snapshot build failures with binutils-2.21.
Is there
On 02.03.2011 07:36, Konstantinos Margaritis wrote:
On 2 March 2011 03:34, Matthias Klose d...@debian.org wrote:
I'll make gcc-4.5 the default for (at least some) architectures within the
next
two weeks before more transitions start. GCC-4.5 is already used as the
default
compiler
On 02.03.2011 17:54, Martin Guy wrote:
On 2 March 2011 02:34, Matthias Klose d...@debian.org wrote:
armel (although optimized for a different processor)
Hi
For which processor (/architecture) is it optimized, and do you mean
optimized-for, or only-runs-on?
I ask in case this would mean
I'll make gcc-4.5 the default for (at least some) architectures within the next
two weeks before more transitions start. GCC-4.5 is already used as the default
compiler for almost any other distribution, so there shouldn't be many surprises
on at least the common architectures. About 50% of the
On 23.12.2010 05:10, tony mancill wrote:
On 12/22/2010 04:13 PM, Matthias Klose wrote:
On 17.12.2010 15:58, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
On Fri, December 17, 2010 14:16, tony mancill wrote:
On 12/13/2010 03:22 PM, Matthias Klose wrote:
so please use the one from unstable, re-generate the control
On 22.12.2010 06:32, tony mancill wrote:
On 12/17/2010 06:24 AM, Matthias Klose wrote:
On 17.12.2010 15:16, tony mancill wrote:
On 12/13/2010 03:22 PM, Matthias Klose wrote:
On 14.12.2010 00:19, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
On Sun, 2010-08-08 at 17:21 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Matthias Klose
On 14.12.2010 00:19, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
On Sun, 2010-08-08 at 17:21 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Matthias Klose:
For those who are interested in an openjdk-6 update for stable, I did
prepare an update for some architectures at
deb http://people.debian.org/~doko/archive stable/
Cool
On 15.11.2010 07:16, Roland McGrath wrote:
mattst88 airlied_, does Fedora use --as-needed by default? Fedora 14 too?
airlied_ mattst88: yes
The naming of the options makes people easily confused.
--no-add-needed is the only option Fedora's gcc passes.
yes, OpenSuse is using --as-needed,
On 14.11.2010 16:06, Roger Leigh wrote:
While I understand the rationale for --no-copy-dt-needed-entries for
preventing encapsulation violations via indirect linking, I don't agree
with the use of --as-needed *at all*. If a library has been explicitly
linked in, it shouldn't be removed. This
On 14.11.2010 13:19, Julien Cristau wrote:
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 15:43:57 +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
For wheezy I'm planning to change the linking behaviour for DSOs
(turning on --as-needed and --no-copy-dt-needed-entries. The
rationale is summarized in
http://wiki.debian.org/ToolChain
1 - 100 of 153 matches
Mail list logo
