Strange GCC failures in Chapter 5
lnxfreak123 at insightbb.com
Sun May 11 22:31:03 PDT 2003
On Sun, 2003-05-11 at 23:09, Ryan.Oliver at pha.com.au wrote:
> Zack Winkles wrote:
> > During the make check of GCC pass 2 in Chapter 5, all of the usual
> > XPASS's in libstdc++-v3 become FAIL's. Though I don't have NLS on the
> > host, it shouldn't particularly matter should it? It should be using the
> > Glibc that we built in Chapter 5, and therefore it's locale data. I
> > checked all of the flags, all of the Chapter 5 Glibc's locale stuff,
> > everything. It just seems strange
> Per chance were you using the old binutils instructions?
> > Despite this, GCC in Chapter 6 has results right along the lines of what
> > we would expect. 26 XPASS's and 1 FAIL. So it seems whatever was/is
> > wrong doesn't get passed on to our child LFS system.
> > Due to this, wouldn't it make sense to remove the checking of GCC (and
> > maybe all the other packages, since their results don't get passed on to
> > the child)?
> I would say leave em in until we've proved this build, from what you are
> saying something has been compromised somewhere in your last build...
> > It's wasted effort it seems to me. PLFS does it's job, and
> > the LFS is pure. Out with Chapter 5 checking!
> Yeah, true for 99% of the time, but the ch5 checks ensure your tools to
> build ch6 are built correctly (it is the ch5 gcc and binutils used for ch6
> I'd be more inclined to find out why the tests broke...
> My $0.02
> Zack isn't the only with problems on this, I'm running into the same thing
although I haven't finished building CVS yet, but I have had the same
exact thing come up on previous attempts to build LFS/PLFS on my system,
albeit that was a different combination of package versions, but it
still occurs now with current CVS. I still have no clue as to what is
wrong even now.
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