On 12.6.2015 19:17, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
Armin K. wrote:
On 12.6.2015 17:12, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
Laurence Dawson wrote:
=== g++ Summary ===
# of expected passes 93236
# of unexpected successes 2
# of expected failures 339
# of unsupported tests 3645
/sources/gcc-build/gcc/testsuite/g++/../../xg++ version 5.1.0 (GCC)
=== gcc tests ===
Running target unix
FAIL: c-c++-common/goacc/acc_on_device-2.c scan-rtl-dump-times expand
"\\\\(call [^\\\\n]* acc_on_device" 0
=== gcc Summary ===
# of expected passes 113926
# of unexpected failures 1
# of expected failures 259
# of unsupported tests 1807
/sources/gcc-build/gcc/xgcc version 5.1.0 (GCC)
If your only failure is that one, then you are doing pretty well. One
out of about 200,000 is not very much.
By the way, google is your friend:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66332
Contains a fix that "fixes a test case" (one more reason for me to find
tests useless) to mark it as "expected failure" (and another reason).
If you get a thousand failures, then we have probably done something
wrong. An individual failure is probably only useful to the upstream
developers, but indeed an individual failure is as likely to be in the
test (or the test harness) as what is being tested.
-- Bruce
Not really. If you get thousands of failures (in case of GCC), it means
a problem with your hardware, not system (in case of the OP, where
insufficient hw was assigned to a VM). It can also mean a missing
dependency, not mounted virtual file systems, etc. You can get all
passes and still a screwed up toolchain (linking to /tools, that is -
been there seen that). Sanity check and bootstrap are enough (first one
for verifying the link to correct libraries and second one for verifying
if a compiler builds anything).
--
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
