> Glad Manuel has provided a fix to disable that test (although it > comes down to "what I don't know about cannot harm me ;)". I > haven't built recently, but I'd just like to note that (at least on > x86_64) during the past 3 years I've *often* seen failures in 'ld' > tests, but everything has still worked ok. I think the ld tests are > *good* at testing corner cases, and that seeing some failures there > is not necessarily a reason to worry. > > The fix is nice and tidy, but I do wonder if it might be better to > accept [ at least for people using the development book ] that tests > fail when the infrastructure changes (in this case, newer gcc) ? > > But, I've no strong feelings either way. > > ĸen
I don't think I have strong feelings either way either but a warning about possible failures would be helpful even if a fix isn't written up. I spent a lot of time trying to find out if the failures were significant but wasn't able to find the info until this list pointed me in the right direction. Thanks for the help Brett -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
