On 13 July 2010 18:15, <[email protected]> wrote:
> I have reached performing make check on binutils-2.20 in chapter 6.12
> LFS version 6.6 and I'm seeing some failures and warnings that are
> not mentioned in the text of that chapter, nor can I find any
> information about them searching the mailing lists archive or anywhere
> on the LFS site. Are these warnings and failures acceptable?
Next time, please can you edit what you post. The results from
binutils and gas look to have all passed (an unsupported test is
one that could not be run on your platform), the only failures were
in ld, specifically in visibility and ld-shared.
> I've tried to manually wrap at col 72, please excuse if I was not
> successful at that endeavor.
>
> I'm building on Fedora 13 32 bit with AMD sempron processor 2 gig mem.
>
Maybe something new in fedora breaks the tests. There have been
sporadic reports of failures in elfvsb over the years.
> Here is the output of my make check run:
> make check-DEJAGNU
> make[5]: Entering directory `/sources/binutils-build/binutils'
> srcdir=`cd ../../binutils-2.20/binutils && pwd`; export srcdir; \
> r=`pwd`; export r; \
> EXPECT=expect; export EXPECT; \
> runtest=runtest; \
> if /bin/sh -c "$runtest --version" > /dev/null 2>&1; then \
> CC_FOR_TARGET="gcc" CFLAGS_FOR_TARGET="-g -O2" \
> $runtest --tool binutils --srcdir ${srcdir}/testsuite \
> ; \
> else echo "WARNING: could not find \`runtest'" 1>&2; :;\
> fi
> WARNING: Couldn't find the global config file.
> WARNING: Couldn't find tool init file
I only kept that part to remark that those messages are normal.
> === ld tests ===
>
> Running /sources/binutils-2.20/ld/testsuite/ld-elfvsb/elfvsb.exp ...
> FAIL: visibility (hidden_normal) (non PIC)
> FAIL: visibility (hidden_normal) (non PIC, load offset)
> FAIL: visibility (hidden_normal) (PIC main, non PIC so)
> FAIL: visibility (hidden_weak) (non PIC)
> FAIL: visibility (hidden_weak) (non PIC, load offset)
> FAIL: visibility (hidden_weak) (PIC main, non PIC so)
> FAIL: visibility (protected) (non PIC)
> FAIL: visibility (protected) (non PIC, load offset)
> FAIL: visibility (protected) (PIC main, non PIC so)
> FAIL: visibility (protected_undef_def) (non PIC)
> FAIL: visibility (protected_undef_def) (non PIC, load offset)
> FAIL: visibility (protected_undef_def) (PIC main, non PIC so)
> FAIL: visibility (protected_weak) (non PIC)
> FAIL: visibility (protected_weak) (non PIC, load offset)
> FAIL: visibility (protected_weak) (PIC main, non PIC so)
> FAIL: visibility (normal) (non PIC)
> FAIL: visibility (normal) (non PIC, load offset)
> FAIL: visibility (normal) (PIC main, non PIC so)
[...]
> Running /sources/binutils-2.20/ld/testsuite/ld-shared/shared.exp ...
> FAIL: shared (non PIC)
> FAIL: shared (non PIC, load offset)
> FAIL: shared (PIC main, non PIC so)
> === ld Summary ===
>
> # of expected passes 537
> # of unexpected failures 21
> # of expected failures 8
> /sources/binutils-build/ld/ld-new 2.20
This is more failures than I expect. Does it matter ? - that I
don't know. Ah, a bit more googling found a possible answer.
(NB that wasn't intended as "you should have googled" -
sometimes we need experience to dig through what is out
there).
Anyway, disable selinux. See
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg08632.html
ĸen
--
After tragedy, and farce, "OMG poneys!"
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
