Ken Moffat wrote:
> Things are looking a lot better than when we started 1.0, but
> they are never perfect. I've noticed the following failures on my
> last two builds, so perhaps it's time to start documenting these.
>
> x86_64 multilib (this was with gcc-4.1.2-rc1, in case the release is
> better) -
>
> glibc 32-bit:
> 3 unexpected failures,
> math/test-double.out
> nptl/tst-cancel1.out
> rt/tst-cpuclock2.out
>
> glibc 64-bit:
> 2 unexpected failures,
> nptl/tst-cancel1.out
> rt/tst-cpuclock2.out
>
> gcc:
> 2 unexpected failures in libmudflap,
> libmudflap.c/fail8-frag.c (-static) output pattern test
> libmudflap.c/fail9-frag.c (-static) output pattern test
>
> ppc64 -
>
> glibc 32-bit:
> 1 unexpected failure,
> rt/tst-cpuclock2.out
>
> glibc 64-bit:
> 1 unexpected failure,
> rt/tst-cpuclock2.out
>
> gcc:
>
> 4 unexpected failures in libmudflap,
> libmudflap.c/fail27-frag.c output pattern test
> libmudflap.c/fail27-frag.c (-static) output pattern test
> libmudflap.c/fail27-frag.c (-O2) output pattern test
> libmudflap.c/fail27-frag.c (-O3) output pattern test
>
> and 2 unexpected failures in libstdc++,
> abi_check
> 26_numerics/complex/13450.cc execution test
>
> ĸen
>
Ken,
Got some wierd errors on the PPC Oldworld build.
http://ftp.jg555.com/testsuites/ppc.oldworld/
Take a look at glibc
_______________________________________________
Clfs-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.cross-lfs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/clfs-dev
