Pure LFS Hint - good to go
gschafer at zip.com.au
Wed Feb 19 20:38:11 PST 2003
On Wed, Feb 19, 2003 at 10:17:30AM -0500, Bill's LFS Login wrote:
> Well, the math errors are still there, same ones as before, IIRC. If we
> need to confirm if they differ, I have the chap 5 stuff tarred up. Since
> you said you would have concern if they still existed in chapter 6, I
> thought I would post.
> As I said before, these are very small differences with which I have
> little concern (no scientific or math apps) and I can live with them
> AFAIK. I am dropping the '&&' from the make check invocation and
You might need "make -k check" there otherwise the tests halt and don't
continue on to the end of the test suite. Of course "make -k check" may
cause folk to not notice errors so I'll leave the plain version in the hint.
Another thought, grep a log file for errors using for e.g.:-
grep "\*\*\*" check.log
> If you've some major concerns, or words of wisdom/patch, just holler. If
> you now feel it is not an issue, silence is understood.
Only 10 out of 2520 failed and they do indeed seem minor. The math tests are
a bit of a grey area but I'm sure they are sensitive to CPU specifics. The
right thing to do (if it is a major concern) is to recheck with the latest
CVS glibc and if failures are still present, create a new ULP file as per
the instructions then submit for inclusion in the next release. But it may
not be worth it for such a boutique (and bit outdated) CPU :-)
> OH! BTW, I'm using the gcc-core, gcc-g++ archives rather than the unified
> gcc archive, if it makes any difference.
Real men use the full archive :-)
Unsubscribe: send email to listar at linuxfromscratch.org
and put 'unsubscribe lfs-dev' in the subject header of the message
More information about the lfs-dev