> On 4/12/07, prdcomp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > ><snip>... the following flags: "-O2 -pipe -march=athlon-xp". Those are >rather >common options, but the number of unexpected (and quite expected by >now) >libmudflap failures raised from the traditional 6 to 320! > > That doesn't seem right. Those are perfectly normal flags, except > maybe -march.
It seems -march can indeed bring some trouble... I've seen it somewhere in the lists... > In fact, gcc by default uses -O2. Are you pretty > confident that you built everything the same way? Pretty sure! :( Actually, built it in two athlon-xp at the same time (& same flags) with very similar results: in one, 320 unexpected failures in libmudflap; in the other, 314 unexpected failures in libmudflap... In both using lfs-livecd-6.2-5. >I've never heard of > mudflap totally falling over like that, but there are issues with it > timing out some tests. Do the errors say that it's timing out? It seems (please correct me if I'm wrong) that it would be "normal" for libmudflap to have 6 unexpected failures... But I got 320. I'm gonna try something different now: I'll go "-march=686 -O3 -mmmx -3dnow -msse -mfpmath=sse -fomit-frame-pointer -pipe" and check the results. Regarding the timing out, I've got one of the log files opened in front of me now. Will reproduce part of it - it indeed mentions "program timed out", but don't know what caused it, its relation with the failures etc: === libmudflap Summary === # of expected passes 974 # of unexpected failures 314 make[4]: *** [check-DEJAGNU] Error 1 make[4]: Leaving directory `/sources/gcc-build/i686-pc-linux-gnu/libmudflap/testsuite` make[3]: *** [check-am] Error 2 make[3]: Target 'check' not remade because of errors. WARNING: program timed out. FAIL: libmudflap.cth/pass39-frag.c (-O2) execution test FAIL: libmudflap.cth/pass39-frag.c (-O2) output pattern test WARNING: program timed out. FAIL: libmudflap.cth/pass39-frag.c (-O2) (rerun 1) execution test FAIL: libmudflap.cth/pass39-frag.c (-O2) (rerun 1) output pattern test WARNING: program timed out. ...<MANY SIMILAR MESSAGES>... FAIL: libmudflap.cth/pass37-frag.c (-O2) (rerun 19) execution test FAIL: libmudflap.cth/pass37-frag.c (-O2) (rerun 19) output pattern test WARNING: program timed out. ...<MANY SIMILAR MESSAGES>... FAIL: libmudflap.cth/pass40-frag.c (-O3) execution test FAIL: libmudflap.cth/pass40-frag.c (-O3) output pattern test === libmudflap Summary === # of expected passes 974 # of unexpected failures 314 And later it does show the same messages again. Any tip on what may be happening? > > Actually, I think the real question is: is it worth trying to optimize >a > > LFS (initial) system? For BLFS, I tend to believe it is. For LFS itself, > > >not that sure. > ><snip> > > > Just shooting from the hip here. I've never gone crazy optimizing or > done any kind of benchmarking. Thanks for the help! Paulo -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
