make check discussion

Ryan.Oliver at pha.com.au Ryan.Oliver at pha.com.au
Thu Jun 17 19:17:42 PDT 2004






> I'm sorry, but I don't understand.
>
> "Normally we would now run the test suite, but at this early stage
> the test suite framework (Tcl, Expect and DejaGNU) is not yet in
> place. And there would be little point in running the tests anyhow,
> since the programs from this first pass will soon be replaced by
> those from the second. "

Glibc doesn't use TCL/expect/dejagnu, though it does use perl for
parts of the testsuite.

> Why would this need to be changed?  Is that statement wrong?

Not for gcc and binutils (though really if you are gonna be doing
any toolchain building your host SHOULD have the gnu test framework
in place and you SHOULD check your preliminary toolchain components,
especially if you are delving into "unstable" territory) but the
statement _is_ wrong for glibc.

As for the statement about there being little point checking them as
they are going to be replaced.

Fair enough gcc is pretty tolerant, as long as it can complete the
build of xgcc during bootstrap and therefore compile itself from itself,
last time I checked we don't do a bootstrap build of shared gcc in ch5.

You can get away without a bootstrap for the shared build because we
assume our ch5 static gcc is good, but note without testing it this is
an assumption only.

I know I'm being anal retentive here (hey, I'm known for it) but I
don't like leaving anything to chance or base things on unproved
assumptions wherever it can be avoided... thats why the build method
is so robust, during its development absolutely everthing was tested
and absolutely nothing left to chance.

[R]




More information about the lfs-dev mailing list