gcc4 and glibc-2.3.x

Andrew Benton b3nt at ukonline.co.uk
Sun Oct 2 09:16:33 PDT 2005


Ken Moffat wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Sep 2005, Andrew Benton wrote:
> 
>>
>> For what it's worth I built my current LFS with current glibc cvs on 
>> Sunday and it doesn't seem unstable at all. I didn't need to patch 
>> glibc to build it with gcc-4.0.1. The glibc test suite had three 
>> fails, two of them were familiar maths test-double and test-idouble, 
>> and one new (well, new to me) c++-types-check. I don't think it was 
>> important though, everything compiled fine and has run well for two days.
>>
> 
>  Well, the snapshot in cross-lfs is surprisingly good, but in general 
> trying to follow glibc CVS is a full-time job for anybody who cares 
> about more than just x86.  I haven't built x86 on cross-lfs yet, but if 
> the c++-types-check is a new failure, that would be another reason why 
> trying to follow glibc cvs is often a bad idea (irrespective of whether 
> it's the code or the test program that now fails).
> 

Well I was going to write back and disagree. That test failure was fixed and last weekend after updating glibc it was back to just the usual maths test-double and test-idouble failures. But then with this week's glibc, I didn't get as far as the tests in chapter 6. At the end of chapter 5, configuring perl hangs like so 


patching file hints/linux.sh Hunk #1 succeeded at 52 with fuzz 1 (offset 1 line).
Hunk #2 succeeded at 314 (offset 32 lines).
sh Configure -ds -e -Dprefix=/tools -Dstatic_ext=IO Fcntl POSIX

And there it hangs...ctrl-c won't bring the prompt back. It's not using the cpu. Normally the next line is `First let's make sure your kit is complete.  Checking...' so presumably it's getting stuck doing that





More information about the lfs-dev mailing list