[lfs-dev] Test failures in something close to current LFS

Bruce Dubbs bruce.dubbs at gmail.com
Wed Jan 28 22:55:04 PST 2015


Ken Moffat wrote:
>   I've started on a build, with current LFS plus a few variations
> (bison-3.0.4, libtool-2.4.5, patch-2.7.3, linux-3.19-rc6 headers)
> and I've also changed my build to untar and compile in a tmpfs -
> does not seem to make any significant difference to the build times I
> can compare, but perhaps the untarring and rm -rf is faster.

I created a ram disk for all of /mnt/lfs and found the speedup time 
negligible.  I didn't run tests though.  The test was on Jan 12 with all 
packages current as of then.

>   Anyway, I mention the tmpfs because attr's testsuite failed - you
> can't have extended attributes in tmpfs - and it is possible that
> the new gcc failures are related to this, or, of course, to the
> newer kernel headers.
>
>   I'm seeing errors, beyond those I expected to see, in the testsuites
> for:
>
> gcc: 125 unexpected failures in g++, 658 in gcc, 22 in libstdc++
> instead of the usual handful of failures.  The last time I saw those
> sorts of numbers was a little while before my AmigaOne expired.
>
> perl: unexpected error number in getnameinfo.t, invalid argument in
> io_multihomed.t and io_sock.t : I think I've seen something like
> that in the last few months, but I thought it had gone away (didn't
> run any tests on real hardware for my previous build, and the logs
> from the i686 VM tests are in qemu images).

I've not seen significant differences between VM and real HW.

   -- Bruce




More information about the lfs-dev mailing list