Pure LFS Hint - good to go

Bill's LFS Login lfsbill at wlmcs.com
Wed Feb 19 21:51:42 PST 2003

On Thu, 20 Feb 2003, Greg Schafer wrote:

> On Wed, Feb 19, 2003 at 10:17:30AM -0500, Bill's LFS Login wrote:
> > Well, the math errors are still there, [...]

> 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

I'll do this on the next pass and post if there are any new items.

> 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
> or whatever.

The only '.log' in glibc is config.log. Nothing in there with stars or
Error. My console log had the Error and *** only right after the make
check detected the math errors. Also, no name check.* looked like that
either. I check each console log for each step run for 'Error' or '***'
(with backslashes ). So I'm clean on that score I think. I normally only
look at config.log files if I see one of he other two in the console
log or something catches my eye.

> > 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

That was my suspicion.

> 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

I'll wait until I feel I can't do more pure-lfs testing. Consistency is
useful during these types of activities.

> not be worth it for such a boutique (and bit outdated) CPU :-)

He-he! Well, I'm sitting on a K6-III 380 Mhz that will replace the
"boutique" CPU when I get another full install done (including some
Blfs) and a wild hair in the appropriate anatomical location. Will that
still qualify as "boutique", albeit a *much* faster one? From what I've
seen on the (B)LFS lists over the last 15 months, there are a lot of us
"boutiquers" around. Might be worthwhile.

> > 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 :-)
> /me runs..

Won't do any good - I can "sashay" pretty damn fast! :-))

*chuckle* I like the one I've seen here about real Klingon programmers
*never* comment their code!

> Greg

Bill Maltby
lfsbill at wlmcs.com

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 mailing list