[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Processed: more gcc tagging



Processing commands for control@bugs.debian.org:

> reassign 121269 gcc-3.3
Bug#121269: [fixed in 3.4] On i386, gcc-3.0 allows $ in indentifiers but not the asm
Bug#121282: [PR c/9209] On i386, gcc-3.0 allows $ in indentifiers but not the asm
Bug reassigned from package `gcc' to `gcc-3.3'.

> reassign 67206 gcc-3.4
Bug#67206: [PR optimization/6901] [fixed in 3.5/tree_ssa] optimiser could be improved
Bug reassigned from package `gcc' to `gcc-3.4'.

> reassign 85535 gcc-3.3
Bug#85535: [fixed in 3.4: PR optimization/3508]: builtin memcmp() could be optimised
Bug reassigned from package `gcc' to `gcc-3.3'.

> tags 85535 - fixed-upstream
Bug#85535: [fixed in 3.4: PR optimization/3508]: builtin memcmp() could be optimised
Tags were: fixed-upstream
Tags removed: fixed-upstream

> retitle 85535 builtin memcmp() could be optimised
Bug#85535: [fixed in 3.4: PR optimization/3508]: builtin memcmp() could be optimised
Changed Bug title.

> tags 253077 + unreproducible
Bug#253077: gcc-2.95: internal compiler error while compiling todays asterisk cvs head
There were no tags set.
Tags added: unreproducible

> reassign 73065 gcc-3.3
Bug#73065: [fixed in gcc-3.4, PR c/6897] Code produced with -fPIC reserves EBX, but compiles bad __asm__ anyway
Bug reassigned from package `gcc-2.95' to `gcc-3.3'.

> tags 283503 + upstream fixed-upstream
Bug#283503: [fixed in 3.4] internal compiler error: in expand_call, at calls.c:3110
There were no tags set.
Tags added: upstream, fixed-upstream

> tags 278642 + upstream
Bug#278642: gcj-3.3: gcj segfaults with Jabref
There were no tags set.
Tags added: upstream

> forwarded 278642 http://gcc.gnu.org/PR21697
Bug#278642: gcj-3.3: gcj segfaults with Jabref
Noted your statement that Bug has been forwarded to http://gcc.gnu.org/PR21697.

> thanks
Stopping processing here.

Please contact me if you need assistance.

Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)



Reply to: