Bug#328705: marked as done (gcc-4.0: [patch] Please enable libffi for hurd-i386)
Your message dated Sat, 17 Sep 2005 10:42:01 +0200
with message-id <17195.55001.225032.447283@gargle.gargle.HOWL>
and subject line Bug#328705: gcc-4.0: [patch] Please enable libffi for hurd-i386
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.)
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--------------------------------------
Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 16 Sep 2005 21:12:36 +0000
>From mbanck@gmx.net Fri Sep 16 14:12:36 2005
Return-path: <mbanck@gmx.net>
Received: from pop.gmx.de (mail.gmx.net) [213.165.64.20]
by spohr.debian.org with smtp (Exim 3.36 1 (Debian))
id 1EGNVb-0004lG-00; Fri, 16 Sep 2005 14:12:35 -0700
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 16 Sep 2005 21:12:03 -0000
Received: from ppp-82-135-11-46.mnet-online.de (EHLO localhost.localdomain) [82.135.11.46]
by mail.gmx.net (mp006) with SMTP; 16 Sep 2005 23:12:03 +0200
X-Authenticated: #686195
Received: from mbanck by localhost.localdomain with local (Exim 4.34)
id 1EGNV3-0000pZ-SW
for submit@bugs.debian.org; Fri, 16 Sep 2005 23:12:01 +0200
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 23:12:01 +0200
From: Michael Banck <mbanck@debian.org>
To: submit@bugs.debian.org
Subject: gcc-4.0: [patch] Please enable libffi for hurd-i386
Message-ID: <[🔎] 20050916211201.GL8883@chemicalconnection.dyndns.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="xHFwDpU9dbj6ez1V"
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040907i
X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0
Delivered-To: submit@bugs.debian.org
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
(1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-8.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_PACKAGE
autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
--xHFwDpU9dbj6ez1V
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Package: gcc-4.0
Version: 4.0.1-7
Severity: wishlist
Tags: patch
The only thing which blocks building libffi on GNU/Hurd is a trivial
addition to configure.ac, to make it recognize the GNU system. This
change has been accepted upstream (only for HEAD though, not the 4.1
branch, AFAIK), the patch is attached.
Please enable libffi on hurd-i386.
Michael
--
Michael Banck
Debian Developer
mbanck@debian.org
http://www.advogato.org/person/mbanck/diary.html
--xHFwDpU9dbj6ez1V
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="libffi-hurd-i386.patch"
2005-08-10 Alfred M. Szmidt <ams@gnu.org>
PR libffi/21819:
* configure: Rebuilt.
* configure.ac: Handle i*86-*-gnu*.
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/gcc/gcc/libffi/configure.ac,v
retrieving revision 1.16
retrieving revision 1.17
diff -u -r1.16 -r1.17
--- gcc/libffi/configure.ac 2005/07/19 21:15:35 1.16
+++ gcc/libffi/configure.ac 2005/08/10 17:19:03 1.17
@@ -42,6 +42,7 @@
TARGETDIR="unknown"
case "$host" in
i*86-*-linux*) TARGET=X86; TARGETDIR=x86;;
+i*86-*-gnu*) TARGET=X86; TARGETDIR=x86;;
i*86-*-solaris2.1[[0-9]]*) TARGET=X86_64; TARGETDIR=x86;;
i*86-*-solaris*) TARGET=X86; TARGETDIR=x86;;
i*86-*-beos*) TARGET=X86; TARGETDIR=x86;;
--xHFwDpU9dbj6ez1V--
---------------------------------------
Received: (at 328705-done) by bugs.debian.org; 17 Sep 2005 08:42:05 +0000
>From doko@cs.tu-berlin.de Sat Sep 17 01:42:05 2005
Return-path: <doko@cs.tu-berlin.de>
Received: from mail.cs.tu-berlin.de [130.149.17.13] (root)
by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.36 1 (Debian))
id 1EGYGr-0005Rg-00; Sat, 17 Sep 2005 01:42:05 -0700
Received: from mailhost.cs.tu-berlin.de (postfix@mail.cs.tu-berlin.de [130.149.17.13])
by mail.cs.tu-berlin.de (8.9.3p2/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA26989;
Sat, 17 Sep 2005 10:42:03 +0200 (MEST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by mailhost.cs.tu-berlin.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01EE2F20F;
Sat, 17 Sep 2005 10:42:03 +0200 (MEST)
Received: from mailhost.cs.tu-berlin.de ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (bueno [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10224) with ESMTP
id 00689-39; Sat, 17 Sep 2005 10:42:01 +0200 (MEST) 11339
Received: from bolero.cs.tu-berlin.de (bolero.cs.tu-berlin.de [130.149.19.1])
by mailhost.cs.tu-berlin.de (Postfix) with ESMTP;
Sat, 17 Sep 2005 10:42:01 +0200 (MEST)
Received: (from doko@localhost)
by bolero.cs.tu-berlin.de (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.8/Submit) id j8H8g1Nn007768;
Sat, 17 Sep 2005 10:42:01 +0200 (MEST)
From: Matthias Klose <doko@cs.tu-berlin.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <17195.55001.225032.447283@gargle.gargle.HOWL>
Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 10:42:01 +0200
To: Michael Banck <mbanck@debian.org>, 328705-done@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#328705: gcc-4.0: [patch] Please enable libffi for hurd-i386
In-Reply-To: <[🔎] 20050917073329.GM8883@chemicalconnection.dyndns.org>
References: <[🔎] 20050916211201.GL8883@chemicalconnection.dyndns.org>
<[🔎] 17195.15276.358507.530886@gargle.gargle.HOWL>
<[🔎] 20050917073329.GM8883@chemicalconnection.dyndns.org>
X-Mailer: VM 7.17 under 21.4 (patch 17) "Jumbo Shrimp" XEmacs Lucid
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at cs.tu-berlin.de
Delivered-To: 328705-done@bugs.debian.org
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
(1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_BUG_NUMBER
autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
Michael Banck writes:
> On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 11:39:56PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > did you actually tried to apply the patch, or is this just a
> > forwarding of a patch for HEAD?
>
> I actually applied, build and tested an identical patch (libffi packages
> are at people.debian.org/~mbanck/hurd-gcc-4.0). I can produce a dpatch
> if that suits you more.
strange, because the patch is already in the 4.0 branch.
Reply to: