On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 11:15:14PM +0100, Pierre Labastie wrote: > > Amazingly, I have less unsupported tests than you in gcc (and many less > XPASS or FAIL), but more unsupported tests in g++. I also have many > more results for gfortran (see attached file). > But, the results which can be compared (gcc, g++, > libstdc++, libitm, libgomp, libmudflap) are the same as during an LFS > build for me. > I also built and tested on a 32 bit virtual machine, and have almost > the same > results. All the libmudflap tests pass, though. > > Regards > Pierre
My memory says that the libmudflap tests on 64-bit have always had a lot of errors, but that 32-bit seemed a lot better. But until last week's LFS-7.2 build I hadn't built 32-bit on x86 for at least 4 years so it is theoretically possible that some versions were worse. ĸen -- das eine Mal als Tragödie, das andere Mal als Farce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
