On 10/23/2013 06:24 PM, Dan McGhee wrote:
In fact, I don't think it conducted any tests.
The commands I use in the glibc-build directory come right out of the book
make -k check 2>&1 | tee glibc-check-log
grep Error glibc-check-log
I do call them from a function defined in a build.conf file called
check_commands, but that shouldn't make any difference--I think.
Now that I think about it, the test suite didn't run for very long.
Maybe 1/2-3/4 hr. I was doing something else. I was really surprised
when I found the file I make from grepping glibc-check-log empty.
Yup, no info. And the glibc-check-log looked like everything had
happened normally with make[1-4] leaving directories until I was in
the directory containing the source and build directories.
I checked the error log I generate during the build and the following
line appeared twelve times:
make[2]: Circular /usr/src/glibc-2.18/glibc-build/linkobj/libc.so <-
/usr/src/glibc-2.18/glibc-build/linkobj/libc.so dependency dropped.
Hopefully putting 2+2 together I googled on this and found:
commit 5f855e3598a576c35e54623a13b256f3e87fcd4d
Author: Brooks Moses <[email protected]>
Date: Thu Oct 3 10:38:14 2013 -0700
Fix erroneous (and circular) implied pattern rule for
linkobj/libc.so.
[BZ #15915] As described in the bug, the pattern rule for lib%.so
files
in Makerules includes linkobj/libc.so as a dependency. However, the
explicit rule for linkobj/libc.so is in the top-level Makefile.
Thus, the subdirectory makefiles that include Makerules end up
with an
erroneous makefile pattern rule for linkobj/libc.so that includes
itself as a dependency. The result is make warnings whenever rules
for other .so files are resolved -- and, on occasion, actual makefile
failures when a race condition causes the implicit rule to
actually be
used.
This patch moves the explicit rules for linkobj/libc.so into
Makerules
to clear up this problem. It also elaborates a couple of comments
that I'd initially found confusing.
at upstream-tracker.org/changelogs/glibc/current/changelog.html
I don't know how to get this patch, nor do I even know if this is what
caused the failure. Couldn't find anything "on point" in the support
or dev archives.
Any thoughts? How to get the patch? Am I barking up the wrong tree?
Another "red face." I found a logic error in my script. Sorry for the
noise.
Dan
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
