Build is verified!

Greg Schafer gschafer at
Wed Mar 19 21:19:50 PST 2003

On Thu, Mar 20, 2003 at 04:25:45AM +0000, Ian Molton wrote:
> Thanks a lot. Thats the last time I stick up for you round here. I've
> defended the 'pure LFS' stuff before now, not, evidently, that you care.

All I care about is building a clean system and the reputation of the LFS

> would you like to actually explain (as asked) how a broken host compiler
> can actually be garaunteed to produce a working compiler from which to
> bootstrap other things?

It cannot. As long as a broken host cc can build the gcc-stage1 xgcc and the
subsequent stages pass the object file comparison tests, then all is sweet.
Looked at the gcc Makefile lately? Look for the "compare" targets.

> AIUI, the gcc make bootstrap NEVER claimed to be able to do this, and in
> fact, has been known to fail starting from buggy compilers.

Proof please. I back up my arguments with facts. Could you please do the
same? Anything else is pure FUD.

> And I *asked* what the benefit is. I didnt denigrate anyones work, and
> Im sorry if you read that into my words. dont read inbetween the lines
> of text, theres nothing there.

Good :-)

> So, I'll ask again, more directly:
> HOW does it garauntee that the compiler (and system) you build is free
> from errors introduced by the host compiler?

It doesn't! One has to prove it! Which is what I've done. I could write a
whole book on this subject (Ummm, I think I did - pure_lfs.txt :-)

> As I said, ***AS I UNDERSTAND IT, AND I COULD BE WRONG***, you have not
> proven it can build correctly from ANY host, just that it can build
> repeatably without regression from YOUR host(s).

Dude, I do not have access to ANY host. That is a ridiculous proposition. If
I did then I could guarantee it. Meanwhile back to reality..

> regression tests *by definition* will not detect a flaw introduced by a
> previous iteration, unless the flaw actually causes a change in the
> output.
> I think an apology is in order...

I already said "sorry to be blunt" and I'm still "sorry to be blunt".

When you've put as much work into this as Ryan and myself have, then have
some apparently clueless person question your work WITHOUT ANY FACTS
whatsoever then you'd react the same.

Please present some facts to back up your arguments! It's not that hard.

Having said all that, as I've already mentioned, we do plan in the future to
release a "LFS Build Verification Suite" which will just be a bunch of
scripted stuff of which I've already written about i.e. just run the script
then wake up in the morn' to check the diff's. Then you won't have to do the
work that we've already done for you.

Meanwhile, this childish bickering is stopping me from getting real work
done so no more from me.

Unsubscribe: send email to listar at
and put 'unsubscribe lfs-dev' in the subject header of the message

More information about the lfs-dev mailing list