Bug#138038: g++: old diversion of c++filt?
I have the same diversion in my computer.
kalle@Astalo:~$ ls -l /usr/bin/c++filt*
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 30028 1998-12-04 06:05 /usr/bin/c++filt
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 55860 2002-08-24 10:50 /usr/bin/c++filt.binutils
kalle@Astalo:~$ /usr/bin/c++filt --version
GNU /usr/bin/c++filt version egcs-2.91.60
kalle@Astalo:~$ /usr/bin/c++filt.binutils --version
GNU /usr/bin/c++filt.binutils (C++ demangler), version 2.13.90.0.4
kalle@Astalo:~$ dpkg -l "g++*" "egcs*" "binutils*"
Desired=Unknown/Install/Remove/Purge/Hold
| Status=Not/Installed/Config-files/Unpacked/Failed-config/Half-installed
|/ Err?=(none)/Hold/Reinst-required/X=both-problems (Status,Err: uppercase=bad)
||/ Name Version Description
+++-==============-==============-============================================
ri g++ 2.95.4-16 The GNU C++ compiler.
ii g++-2.95 2.95.4-11 The GNU C++ compiler.
pn g++-2.97 <none> (no description available)
ii g++-3.0 3.0.4-12 The GNU C++ compiler.
ii g++-3.1 3.1.1-2 The GNU C++ compiler.
ii g++-3.2 3.2.1-0pre1 The GNU C++ compiler.
pn g++272 <none> (no description available)
un egcs-docs <none> (no description available)
ii binutils 2.13.90.0.4-1 The GNU assembler, linker and binary utiliti
pn binutils-arm <none> (no description available)
pn binutils-avr <none> (no description available)
pn binutils-dev <none> (no description available)
ii binutils-doc 2.13.90.0.4-1 Documentation for the GNU assembler, linker
pn binutils-doc-i <none> (no description available)
un binutils-h8300 <none> (no description available)
pn binutils-h8300 <none> (no description available)
pn binutils-m68k <none> (no description available)
pn binutils-m68k- <none> (no description available)
un binutils-m68k- <none> (no description available)
pn binutils-mipse <none> (no description available)
rc binutils-multi 2.12.90.0.1-4 Binary utilities that support multi-arch tar
pn binutils-power <none> (no description available)
pn binutils-sparc <none> (no description available)
kalle@Astalo:~$
If you need more information, please ask.
Reply to: