On 2019-05-07 14:14 -0500, Bruce Dubbs via lfs-dev wrote:
> On 5/7/19 12:44 PM, Xi Ruoyao via lfs-dev wrote:
> > On 2019-05-07 11:46 -0500, Bruce Dubbs via lfs-dev wrote:
> > > On 5/7/19 6:07 AM, Xi Ruoyao via lfs-dev wrote:
> > > > Hi folks,
> > > > 
> > > > I just updated the status of GCC test suite in r11593.  I noticed two
> > > > failures
> > > > because the lack of /etc/hosts and iana-etc.  They can be resolved by
> > > > using
> > > > the
> > > > minimal hosts file from Perl page, and installing iana-etc before GCC.
> > > > 
> > > > The edited book is at 
> > > > http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/~xry111/LFS-BOOK-rfc/.
> > > 
> > > I saw those updates.  Thanks.
> > > 
> > > If you want to dig into gcc, take a look at the 100 gcc errors when
> > > valgrind and gdb are installed.  Most seem to be related, but I didn't
> > > want to try to figure them out.  Upstream knows about them as I found
> > > them in the test results page.
> > 
> > I just ignore all failures of "guality" tests.
> > 
> > > If test failures are due to the test environment or bugs in the tests
> > > themselves, I generally don't think is is worth our time to try to
> > > figure out fixes.
> > 
> > Only because I was using some CFLAGS/CXXFLAGS, I spent some time to make
> > sure
> > these flags didn't cause the failures.  I think it's OK to document these
> > failures in the book and let the readers to ignore them.  So let's keep the
> > book
> > like now.
> 
> I agree.
> 
> > But, just curious, why did we move shadow for several gcc tests?
> 
>  From the change log last August:
> 
> "Move shadow to before gcc so the gcc tests can
> use su to run as a non-privileged user."

I mean we moved shadow to run gcc testsuite as a non-privileged user, only in
order to fix several failures in libstdc++fs tests...
-- 
Xi Ruoyao <xry...@mengyan1223.wang>
School of Aerospace Science and Technology, Xidian University

-- 
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page

Reply via email to