On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 01:28:09PM +0000, Richard wrote: > Hello again, > > I have finally completed the leviathan task of my first gcc compilation and > test. > > I am encouraged to have only one unexpected failure outside libmudflap. > > This leaves me with two questions. > > 1. How bad is that error? I have inferred that it is probably infrequent - > but it does no harm to check... > (FAIL: g++.dg/asan/asan_test.C -O2 AddressSanitizer_HugeMallocTest > Ident((char*)malloc(size))[-1] = 0 output pattern test, should match is > located 1 bytes to the left of 2726297600-byte) >
I've never seen that one, I assume it is probably platform-specific My rule of thumb is that a large number of unexpected failures mean something is wrong [ I had that once, in the early days of udev ]. Beyond that, I don't have a high regard for testsuites - what really matters is whether the package will work in normal situations. Getting a new failure is interesting, but might be random. > 2. Far more worryingly - have I somehow mishandled the tests? I am drawn to > startling disparity in the test totals. Here is my gcc summary, based on > source tarballs downloaded in the past week or so: > > === gcc Summary === > > # of expected passes92870 > # of expected failures259 > # of unsupported tests1096 > > and here is the corresponding section from > http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/build-logs/stable/core2duo/test-logs/080-gcc > (which I believe ran in August): > === gcc Summary === > > # of expected passes93302 > # of expected failures261 > # of unsupported tests1368 > > Am I correct in thinking that I am missing 706 tests? Has the test suite > really shrunk by 700 tests in the past 8 weeks? Are you using the 7.4 book or svn ? If you are using gcc-4.8.2 then I have no data to offer. > > Again, many thanks, R. I've only built 32-bit x86 once for LFS-7.4 (on a recent AMD machine, I think it's an A4). My results were more like yours than Bruce's : === gcc Summary === # of expected passes 92903 # of expected failures 259 # of unsupported tests 1084 What appears to be changing is the number of unexpected failures. My build had some variations from the -rc1 book (a patch in automake which I think got into the release, and eudev instead of udev from systems), but those are later than the gcc test results. I also limit the compatability code in glibc [ --enable-kernel=3.9.0 to suite my rescue CD ] but I'm guessing the config of the running kernel might be what has most influence on which tests are unsupported. Everything else we've built at this stage should match. Mostly, I only look at the errors reported by this sort of testsuite. ĸen -- das eine Mal als Tragödie, dieses Mal als Farce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
