LinuxQuestions.org

LinuxQuestions.org (/questions/)
-   Linux From Scratch (http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/linux-from-scratch-13/)
-   -   6.16 in book 6.8 Building GCC what errors are acceptable (http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/linux-from-scratch-13/6-16-in-book-6-8-building-gcc-what-errors-are-acceptable-903903/)

mreff555 09-19-2011 05:23 PM

6.16 in book 6.8 Building GCC what errors are acceptable
 
I've asked enough questions on this board while attempting to build this thing to know that I should expect some errors, but this seems like a lot.

PHP Code:

        === g++ Summary ===

# of expected passes        22526
# of expected failures        149
# of unsupported tests        115
/sources/gcc-build/gcc/testsuite/g++/../../g++  version 4.5.2 (GCC

        === 
gcc tests ===
--
        === 
gcc Summary ===

# of expected passes        61949
# of expected failures        166
# of unsupported tests        542
/sources/gcc-build/gcc/xgcc  version 4.5.2 (GCC

        === 
libgomp tests ===
--
        === 
libgomp Summary ===

# of expected passes        1029
        
=== libmudflap tests ===


Running target unix
FAIL
libmudflap.c/pass46-frag.(-O2) (test for excess errors)
--
        === 
libmudflap Summary ===

# of expected passes        1408
# of unexpected failures    19
        
=== libstdc++ tests ===


Running target unix
--
        === 
libstdc++ Summary ===

# of expected passes        7075
# of expected failures        95
# of unsupported tests        339 

Then again a lot of tests were run. Any thought or comments?
Not sure how to proceed.

druuna 09-20-2011 01:06 AM

Hi,

The thing to look for in the output you posted are the # of unexpected failures, the rest is nice to know, but not that important.

The only time I see this is in the libmudflap tests section, which is mentioned in the gcc chapter:
Quote:

A few unexpected failures cannot always be avoided. The GCC developers are usually aware of these issues, but have not resolved them yet. In particular, the libmudflap tests are known be particularly problematic as a result of a bug in GCC (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20003). Unless the test results are vastly different from those at the above URL, it is safe to continue.
It is probably safe to continue, but do check out the link that is mentioned in the above quote from the LFS book.

Hope this helps.

mreff555 09-20-2011 06:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by druuna (Post 4476819)
Hi,

The thing to look for in the output you posted are the # of unexpected failures, the rest is nice to know, but not that important.

The only time I see this is in the libmudflap tests section, which is mentioned in the gcc chapter:

It is probably safe to continue, but do check out the link that is mentioned in the above quote from the LFS book.

Hope this helps.

The problem is that link isn't valid for book 6.8.

druuna 09-20-2011 06:54 AM

Hi,
Quote:

Originally Posted by mreff555 (Post 4477069)
The problem is that link isn't valid for book 6.8.

Why?

It is mentioned in the LFS 6.8 book. Its contents might be from 2005, but it is still valid (as mentioned in comment #2).

mreff555 09-20-2011 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by druuna (Post 4477082)
Hi,
Why?

It is mentioned in the LFS 6.8 book. Its contents might be from 2005, but it is still valid (as mentioned in comment #2).

Whoops, I was copy and pasting from the pdf to chrome and it was taking me to the wrong site :)

Looks my results are definitely not any worse than many of the other. I guess I'll go ahead with the build.

Thanks


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:47 AM.