On Sat, Mar 28, 2020 at 06:44:50PM +0000, Ken Moffat via blfs-dev wrote: > > Just a note for everyone here who doesn't follow blfs-book : > > With llvm added in /opt/llvm and at the front of my PATH (test: > clang --version reports 10.0.0) I'm again seeing a failure from rust > issue 69225 https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/69225 which is > why I was building 1.41.1 with its shipped llvm rather than old > system llvm-9.0.1 (as documented in the wiki for firefox and rust). > > Failing the test added in 1.41.1 for that problem makes me think > _my_ build is not safe to use. I know that Pierre only had 4 > failures, but accidentally deleted the log (yeah, I too have done > that often enough) so I don't know for certain if something in my > rustc-1.42.0 build was fubar'd, but for the moment I'm not going to > procede with measuring 1.42.0 until I can try to get a handle on > this. > > My build used all 8 cores and my own CFLAGS, CXXFLAGS so not > relevant to the SBU and space figures for the book. > I've had an idea. I think that something from llvm in /usr maybe got pulled in by the running version from /opt. Will backup, then try installing llvm-10.0.0 in /usr and retry rustc.
ĸen -- When alle is ſayed and all is done, ye must chooſe your faces wisely, for soon enouff ye will be playing with fyre." The Nice and Accurate Prophecies of Agnes Nutter, Prophecy 5004 -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
