On 05/18/2014 01:53 AM, Ken Moffat wrote: > Since my build has stalled, I took the time to look at my test > results. The following had failures (on x86_64) - > > automake : > > FAIL: t/lex-clean-cxx.sh > FAIL: t/lex-depend-cxx.sh >
Latest svn should have this fixed by forcing usage of libfl.a instead of -lfl which defaults to shared lib. > bc had the usual > > binutils : > > ld-plugin failures (do we really want to enable this ?) > FAIL: PR ld/12758 > FAIL: PR ld/12760 > FAIL: LTO 3 symbol > FAIL: PR ld/13183 > FAIL: LTO 3a > FAIL: LTO 11 > gcc-4.9 issue I think. I believe archlinux has fix for this one. > coreutils : > > FAIL: tests/misc/nohup.sh > > I see this was ok in LFS-7.5, but failed on my 20140331 build, > which was before gcc-4.9. > > eudev : > > 1 errors occurred, in udev-test.pl but I can't work out which test > it was. > I've seen the same thing in 1.5.4 : I append udev-test.pl.log to my > own log, > but it is full of lines like > open /dev/null failed: No such file or directory > which don't really help and I cannot spot any _real_ error. > Same test fails in systemd too. Neither I have been able to figure it out. That's why I disabled it. > gcc : > > FAIL: c-c++-common/tsan/thread_leak1.c > (several times, for different optimizations) > > FAIL: gcc.c-torture/compile/limits-exprparen.c > (several times, for different optimizations, all of them ICEd) > > FAIL: g++.dg/ipa/devirt-11.C > (several times, for different values of -std=) > I think latest patch modified something regarding ipa but I'm not sure. Maybe that caused it? > Oddly, I cannot see any totals for unexpected failures > > glibc : > > make[2]: *** > [/building/glibc-build/libio/tst-ftell-partial-wide.out] Error 1 > make[1]: *** [libio/tests] Error 2 > make[2]: *** [/building/glibc-build/posix/tst-getaddrinfo4.out] > Error 1 > make[2]: [/building/glibc-build/posix/annexc.out] Error 1 (ignored) > make[1]: *** [posix/tests] Error 2 > make[2]: [/building/glibc-build/conform/run-conformtest.out] Error 1 > (ignored) > make: *** [check] Error 2 > > That tst-ftell-partial-wide failure is new since LFS-7.5, and was > also seen with gcc-4.8.2 in March. > > perl : > > t/op/numconvert ............................................... # > '-9223372036854775808' ne '-9.22337203685478e+18', > -1.84467440737096e+19 => I - N P vs I - P > # '-9223372036854775808' ne '-9.22337203685478e+18', > # -1.84467440737096e+19 => I - N P vs I - P > # '-9223372036854775808' ne '-9.22337203685478e+18', > # -9.22337203685478e+18 => I - N P vs I - P > # '-9223372036854775808' ne '-9.22337203685478e+18', > # -9223372036854775808 => I - N P vs I - P > # '-9223372036854775808' ne '-9.22337203685478e+18', > # 9223372036854775808 => I - N P vs I - P > # Failed test 104 - at op/numconvert.t line 247 > # '-9223372036854775808' ne '-9.22337203685478e+18', > # -9223372036854775808 => N - N P vs N - P > # Failed test 108 - at op/numconvert.t line 247 > # '-9223372036854775808' ne '-9.22337203685478e+18', > # -9223372036854775808 => P - N P vs P - P > # Failed test 112 - at op/numconvert.t line 247 > # '-9223372036854775808' ne '-9.22337203685478e+18', > # -1.84467440737096e+19 => I - u P vs I - P > # '-9223372036854775808' ne '-9.22337203685478e+18', > # -1.84467440737096e+19 => I - u P vs I - P > # '-9223372036854775808' ne '-9.22337203685478e+18', > # -9.22337203685478e+18 => I - u P vs I - P > # '-9223372036854775808' ne '-9.22337203685478e+18', > # -9223372036854775808 => I - u P vs I - P > # '-9223372036854775808' ne '-9.22337203685478e+18', > # 9223372036854775808 => I - u P vs I - P > # Failed test 136 - at op/numconvert.t line 247 > # '-9223372036854775808' ne '-9.22337203685478e+18', > # -9223372036854775808 => N - u P vs N - P > # Failed test 140 - at op/numconvert.t line 247 > # '-9223372036854775808' ne '-9.22337203685478e+18', > # -9223372036854775808 => P - u P vs P - P > # Failed test 144 - at op/numconvert.t line 247 > # '-9223372036854775808' ne '-9.22337203685478e+18', > # -1.84467440737096e+19 => I - i P vs I - P > # '-9223372036854775808' ne '-9.22337203685478e+18', > # -1.84467440737096e+19 => I - i P vs I - P > # '-9223372036854775808' ne '-9.22337203685478e+18', > # -9.22337203685478e+18 => I - i P vs I - P > # '-9223372036854775808' ne '-9.22337203685478e+18', > # -9223372036854775808 => I - i P vs I - P > # '-9223372036854775808' ne '-9.22337203685478e+18', > # 9223372036854775808 => I - i P vs I - P > # Failed test 152 - at op/numconvert.t line 247 > # '-9223372036854775808' ne '-9.22337203685478e+18', > # -9223372036854775808 => N - i P vs N - P > # Failed test 156 - at op/numconvert.t line 247 > # '-9223372036854775808' ne '-9.22337203685478e+18', > # -9223372036854775808 => P - i P vs P - P > # Failed test 160 - at op/numconvert.t line 247 > # '-9223372036854775808' ne '-9.22337203685478e+18', > # -1.84467440737096e+19 => I - n P vs I - P > # '-9223372036854775808' ne '-9.22337203685478e+18', > # -1.84467440737096e+19 => I - n P vs I - P > # '-9223372036854775808' ne '-9.22337203685478e+18', > # -9.22337203685478e+18 => I - n P vs I - P > # '-9223372036854775808' ne '-9.22337203685478e+18', > # -9223372036854775808 => I - n P vs I - P > # '-9223372036854775808' ne '-9.22337203685478e+18', > # 9223372036854775808 => I - n P vs I - P > # Failed test 168 - at op/numconvert.t line 247 > FAILED at test 104 > > and > > t/op/range .................................................... # > Failed test 84 - Lower bound accepted: -9223372036854775807 at > op/range.t line 289 > # Failed test 85 - Lower bound okay at op/range.t line 290 > # got undef > # expected "-9223372036854775807" > # Failed test 86 - Upper bound okay at op/range.t line 291 > # got undef > # expected "-9223372036854775797" > # Failed test 87 - Lower bound accepted: -9223372036854775806 at > # op/range.t line 289 > # Failed test 88 - Lower bound okay at op/range.t line 290 > # got undef > # expected "-9223372036854775806" > # Failed test 89 - Upper bound okay at op/range.t line 291 > # got undef > # expected "-9223372036854775797" > # Failed test 90 - Lower bound accepted: -9223372036854775805 at > # op/range.t line 289 > # Failed test 91 - Lower bound okay at op/range.t line 290 > # got undef > # expected "-9223372036854775805" > # Failed test 92 - Upper bound okay at op/range.t line 291 > # got undef > # expected "-9223372036854775797" > # Failed test 93 - Lower bound accepted: -9223372036854775804 at > # op/range.t line 289 > # Failed test 94 - Lower bound okay at op/range.t line 290 > # got undef > # expected "-9223372036854775804" > # Failed test 95 - Upper bound okay at op/range.t line 291 > # got undef > # expected "-9223372036854775797" > # Failed test 99 - Upper bound accepted: -9223372036854775807 at > # op/range.t line 310 > # Failed test 100 - Lower bound okay at op/range.t line 311 > # got undef > # expected "-9223372036854775807" > # Failed test 101 - Upper bound okay at op/range.t line 312 > # got undef > # expected "-9223372036854775807" > # Failed test 102 - Upper bound accepted: -9223372036854775806 at > # op/range.t line 310 > # Failed test 103 - Lower bound okay at op/range.t line 311 > # got undef > # expected "-9223372036854775807" > # Failed test 104 - Upper bound okay at op/range.t line 312 > # got undef > # expected "-9223372036854775806" > # Failed test 105 - Upper bound accepted: -9223372036854775805 at > # op/range.t line 310 > # Failed test 106 - Lower bound okay at op/range.t line 311 > # got undef > # expected "-9223372036854775807" > # Failed test 107 - Upper bound okay at op/range.t line 312 > # got undef > # expected "-9223372036854775805" > # Failed test 108 - Upper bound accepted: -9223372036854775804 at > # op/range.t line 310 > # Failed test 109 - Lower bound okay at op/range.t line 311 > # got undef > # expected "-9223372036854775807" > # Failed test 110 - Upper bound okay at op/range.t line 312 > # got undef > # expected "-9223372036854775804" > # Failed test 111 - Range accepted at op/range.t line 330 > FAILED at test 84 > > Those two are both new after 20140422, so I suspect the gcc patch. > > util-linux : > > last: last ipv6 ... FAILED (last/ipv6) > last: last ... FAILED (last/last) > > I think I've seen these before, but I believed the first was caused > by not setting CONFIG_IPV6=y in my host kernel's .config, but on > this occasion I do have that set. > > Note that I managed not to test acl, I need to work out why my > script failed to do that. > > You all should know by now that I think the test results are only > useful for showing new failures, and that what really matters is > whether the completed system works. In this case, the new failures > for automake, coreutils and glibc are probably no big deal. > > The gcc tsan tests are probably new in 4.9, so not too worrying. > > But binutils gives me a worrying feeling in the context of enabling > lto, and perl looks as if it doesn't like something, presumably the > gcc patch. > > ĸen > -- Note: My last name is not Krejzi. -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
