There is a question to my post, but first... much respect to all of you working not just on lfs but using these systems in the first place. I am not a computer person. I love computers, and problem solving, but I cook for a living. So six months ago I had NEVER even heard or unix, linux, ubuntu, open source or any of this vein of computer topics. I happened upon a free computer and googled how to fix the jacked up Windows on it and Linux came up! I now have a desktop and a laptop with Ubuntu one of which I'm trying to work through the lfs on a partition! So again, I think its great that so many people have a passion for this. I think Linux is like the Harley-Davidson of computers.

Anyway, so the lfs is going fairly well, the problems I've had I have found search answers too or figured out. BUT ,what I wanted someone to explain because I am not a prgramming person is in regards to the gcc test suite.

The tests seem so glitched themselves that I dont get why they are so relied upon. I even went to the gcc site and they (as well as the lfs book) talk about all these inevitable failures and bugs? So what gives. Is it just the only alternative for testing that package? Plus it seems so cumbersome? Anyway, just curious, thats the first part of the book I've thought wow this is a mess!!!

Look forward to interacting on the forum! Thanks!

Hi randalleg,

First of all: Welcome to LQ!

You don't mention which chapter you are referring to in regards to the test suites. Just in case: Running the test suites in chapter 5 is not needed/wanted. Although it is possible to run some of the test suites, at certain stages it isn't even possible to run them.

In general: Only run the test suites when doing chapter 6 and do make sure that the tests are successful. Don't continue when it fails.

Gcc is an incredible complex piece of software that needs to be able to run on a wide variety of (old and new) hardware and it also has to take into account the OS it is installed on.

Saying that there will be inevitable failures and bugs is a bit strongly stated. As mentioned in chapter 6.16: unexpected failures cannot always be avoided.

My personal experience with building and testing gcc over the years (i've been using LFS from version 4 on a variety of hardware) is this: Yes, every so often you might see an error that is not mentioned in the build-logs, but most of the time they are harmless and can be ignored (one does need to do some on-line searching when this happens). Up 'till now I did not run into severe gcc test-suite problems and never had problems when using off-the-shelve pc hardware.

I have to agree that gcc is one of the more labour intensive packages when it comes to the test suit and the results it produces (although glibc comes in a close second). There is no alternative to the test suit and it is considered critical.

Hope this clears things up a bit.