On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 6:08 PM, Robert Connolly <rob...@linuxfromscratch.org> wrote: > > You should be cross referencing with lfs-svn. Sometimes they have fixes.
Good point. I will probably try to tackle that over the weekend. Up to this point I was just trying to find the appropriate way to pass the right options to make. > The x86_64 additions would be nice, but it's up to you if you want to add them > (you'll need an x86_64 to be sure it works). Sounds interesting. I might look into that. > I prefer 'make -C ld install'. Then you suggest we go back to holding on to the object directory untill the re-adjusting phase? > Modifying the pass1 specs would use an Sed command to search for "cc1:" > and "cc1plus:, and appending to the next new line. I don't remember how to do > this from memory. > > It would be nice if upstream would add -fno-stack-protector and -fno-PIE to > their test suite CFLAGS. They might be willing, but I don't have the first > clue how to make a patch for it. > > robert I am open to using the specs file to pass compiler flags for the test suites. Although I think it would be just as effective to pass them to the make command. I did some more research, and I think I found why the gcc team isn't bothering to add those flags to their testsuite. >From http://www.gnu.org/software/gcc/faq.html How do I pass flags like -fnew-abi to the testsuite? make RUNTESTFLAGS="--tool_opts '-fnew-abi -fno-honor-std'" check-g++ When I ran the tests with the below command things were considerably better than when I used CFLAGS. make RUNTESTFLAGS="--tool_opts '-fPIC -fno-stack-protector -U_FORTIFY_SOURCE -nonow -nopie'" -k check === gcc Summary === # of expected passes 42538 # of unexpected failures 32 <----This was well over 300 using CFLAGS # of expected failures 116 # of unresolved testcases 1 # of untested testcases 35 -- === g++ Summary === # of expected passes 13650 # of unexpected failures 13 <----This was well over 300 as well. # of expected failures 67 # of untested testcases 3 # of unsupported tests 77 -- === libstdc++ Summary === # of expected passes 3684 # of unexpected failures 169 # of unexpected successes 1 # of expected failures 14 # of unsupported tests 316 -- === libmudflap Summary === # of expected passes 1679 # of unexpected failures 106 -- === libgomp Summary === # of expected passes 496 Still plenty of failures but its getting better. Did I miss any obvious compiler options? Robert Baker -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/hlfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
