On Friday 05 October 2007 17:31:56 Alexander E. Patrakov wrote: > Jeremy Huntwork wrote: > > On Fri, 5 Oct 2007 07:25:48 -0600, Jeremy Huntwork <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> grep Error /mnt/lfs/jhalfs/test-logs/065-glibc > >> make[3]: [/sources/glibc-build/posix/annexc.out] Error 1 (ignored) > >> > >> I'll be running a test on trunk now just to make sure that everything is > >> kosher. > > > > The development book is fine. It looks like those optimizations are > > causing you problems. > > It is known that on different Intel CPUs, glibc chooses at runtime > different algorithms for certain floating-point operations (grep for > HWCAP_I386_XMM, for example, which corresponds to SSE support). So here > it may well be that this part of the Glibc testsuite in fact a testsuite > for the CPU. For the meaningful comparison of the results, I ask both > you and the original poster to post the contents of /proc/cpuinfo. > > -- > Alexander E. Patrakov
On Friday 05 October 2007 17:31:56 Alexander E. Patrakov wrote: > Jeremy Huntwork wrote: > > On Fri, 5 Oct 2007 07:25:48 -0600, Jeremy Huntwork <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> grep Error /mnt/lfs/jhalfs/test-logs/065-glibc > >> make[3]: [/sources/glibc-build/posix/annexc.out] Error 1 (ignored) > >> > >> I'll be running a test on trunk now just to make sure that everything is > >> kosher. > > > > The development book is fine. It looks like those optimizations are > > causing you problems. > > It is known that on different Intel CPUs, glibc chooses at runtime > different algorithms for certain floating-point operations (grep for > HWCAP_I386_XMM, for example, which corresponds to SSE support). So here > it may well be that this part of the Glibc testsuite in fact a testsuite > for the CPU. For the meaningful comparison of the results, I ask both > you and the original poster to post the contents of /proc/cpuinfo. > > -- > Alexander E. Patrakov Hello As requested my /proc/cpuinfo is attached. (Sorry not sure if you guys perfer stuff like this attached or pasted into the email body) Jeremy: I didn't deviate from chapter 5 at all and the glibc test results which i posted were with the default optimization. Strangely dropping the optimization back to default seems to increase the math error. PS: My apologies in advance if this email arrives twice - for some bizarre reason my server (postfix) seemed to throw a wobbler with LFS greylisting! Many Thanks Athena
processor : 0 vendor_id : GenuineIntel cpu family : 15 model : 4 model name : Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU 3.20GHz stepping : 1 cpu MHz : 3264.781 cache size : 1024 KB physical id : 0 siblings : 2 core id : 0 cpu cores : 1 fdiv_bug : no hlt_bug : no f00f_bug : no coma_bug : no fpu : yes fpu_exception : yes cpuid level : 5 wp : yes flags : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat pse36 clflush dts acpi mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss ht tm pbe nx constant_tsc pni monitor ds_cpl cid xtpr bogomips : 6531.45 clflush size : 64 processor : 1 vendor_id : GenuineIntel cpu family : 15 model : 4 model name : Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU 3.20GHz stepping : 1 cpu MHz : 3264.781 cache size : 1024 KB physical id : 0 siblings : 2 core id : 0 cpu cores : 1 fdiv_bug : no hlt_bug : no f00f_bug : no coma_bug : no fpu : yes fpu_exception : yes cpuid level : 5 wp : yes flags : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat pse36 clflush dts acpi mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss ht tm pbe nx constant_tsc pni monitor ds_cpl cid xtpr bogomips : 6528.18 clflush size : 64
-- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
