#1659: Re-evaluate the possible Glibc test failures with the current GCC and 
Glibc
combinations
-----------------------------------------+----------------------------------
 Reporter:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]  |        Owner:  [email protected]
     Type:  task                         |       Status:  new                   
       
 Priority:  normal                       |    Milestone:  6.2                   
       
Component:  Book                         |      Version:  SVN                   
       
 Severity:  normal                       |   Resolution:                        
       
 Keywords:                               |  
-----------------------------------------+----------------------------------
Comment (by [EMAIL PROTECTED]):

 Processor is PIII 500 building SVN-20060619.

 No failures in glibc, gcc or binutils besides annexc.out.

 However, I've noticed that the glibc tests (especially nptl/) are touchy
 if there is any system load. I've gotten a couple intermittent failures
 when building on a non-idle box.  For instance, on both anduin (athlon xp
 2100) and my PIII, I've returned both test results that had errors and
 didn't using the exact same build techniques.

 In particular, tst-clock2 in nptl/ for glibc has been known to fail often.
 I've gotten it both on anduin and at home, and it has come up a couple
 times a month on lfs-support. The build with clean results was done
 overnight at home when things were completely idle.  This was using the
 same svn version of jhalfs. If I knew C, I'd try to diagnose it.

 My suggestion would be to mention that tst-clock2 can be safely ignored
 (if it's the only failure), and that running the toolchain testsuites on
 an unloaded box may provide cleaner results.

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://wiki.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/ticket/1659>
LFS Trac <http://wiki.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/>
Linux From Scratch: Your Distro, Your Rules.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-book
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page

Reply via email to