On 8/16/20 10:58 AM, Hans Malissa via blfs-support wrote:
On August 16, 2020 at 6:27 AM, Xi Ruoyao via blfs-support
<blfs-support@lists.linuxfromscratch.org> wrote:
On 2020-08-16 02:27 +0100, Ken Moffat via blfs-support:
Playing with CFLAGS does not always do what you expect (it depends
on the individual packages as to whether you need to take special
action to force your own CFLAGS, and trying to detune released
packages seems like a bad idea. For the little it is worth, I did
some experiments just over a year ago with the aim of forcing my own
CFLAGS, CXXFLAGS and exploring some of the options. The results
(basically one run of each variation, but with some upgrades along
the way) were mostly inconclusive but somewhere in there are details
of what I had to do to the packages I build to get them to obey my
CFLAGS (or in some cases, to not use my optimization of -O2 or -O3)
because some default to -O3 but will detune to -O2 if you pass that,
and one some of my less-powerful machines I do generally use -O2.
But the problem was in nss. I do not regard that as a large
package, although it is a slow one when built using -j1.
AFAICS building nss-3.55 less than 300 MB which should be trivial.
Current version of NSS can be built with -jN. But I can tell that the
test
suite just fails with -O3.
I followed the build with free from another terminal; the machine does
indeed run out of memory (2GB on this system) during make.
I temporarily added some swap space (on an external hard drive), and
the build succeeded - building NSS needs ~1GB of swap on top of my 2GB.
I'm planning to install NSS and remove the swap space again. Does the
memory usage during the build have anything to do with memory usage
during run-time? Will I be able to use NSS without the swap space?
By the way, the test suite (following the instructions on
http://linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/view/systemd/postlfs/nss.html ) reports:
Tests summary:
--------------
Passed: 54674
Failed: 2442
Failed with core: 0
ASan failures: 0
Unknown status: 8
TinderboxPrint:Unknown: 8
Is it safe to proceed with 2442 failed tests?
Greetings,
Hans
You should be safe to proceed. The NSS test suite is quite buggy, and
it's dependent on the contents of /etc/hosts as well as you passing
"HOST=localhost DOMSUF=localdomain". On that note, make sure that you
have the following line in /etc/hosts next time you run the tests:
127.0.0.1 localhost.localdomain localhost
I think that was changed after the 9.1 release cycle. That allows the
NSS test suite to function properly.
You should be OK, NSS should work perfectly without swap space. I think
you hit the memory ceiling when linking. You might want to invest in
more RAM though in the future, if at all possible.
- Doug
--
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
