On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 09:15:02PM +0100, Ken Moffat wrote: > On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 06:30:59PM +0200, Armin K. wrote: > > On 05/18/2014 01:53 AM, Ken Moffat wrote: > > > > > > > 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. > > > > Seems likely. But we now enable the lto plugin for gcc. I cannot > tell if that is or is not wise until I can finish the system, but at > the moment I feel (slightly) concerned. >
Well, I've now completed my normal desktop (on x86_64) after thinking that the build was dead because I couldn't build a kernel [ phenom issue, probably - noted in the other thread ] and everything has built without issues. Most of it isn't yet tested, and I've no idea if anything I build actually _uses_ LTO, but at the moment it all looks good. > > > 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? > > Could be. Again, what will really matter is the results for the > complete system. > Since everything built fine, I was probably worrying unnecessarily. > The two that most concern me are the new perl failures, > particularly the one that now gets undef. > I still think that anything using real numbers in perl (if there is such a thing!) will benefit from testing to see if it still works. So, for a server I would be reluctant to try gcc-4.9 at the moment. On my desktop, the only heavy perl user is get_iplayer (download phone-size video from the BBC - for people in GB) and that is working without any obvious errors. So for x86_64 desktop applications I think the build is ok, even if the test results are not. My "Norwegian Blue" build is back from the dead. ĸen -- das eine Mal als Tragödie, dieses Mal als Farce -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
