Le 22/11/2014 21:20, Paul Rogers a écrit : > I changed the subject line as requested. >> >> For one failure, I'd ignore it and continue. >> > > I notice your test cases were build for x86_64, mine for i686. As I > said, I did a C&P into a wrapper script, but my error causes the "make > check" to drop out. That alone makes it seem pretty important. I did > a diff with your test cases, and most of it isn't alarming, but I have > this: > -----------------------8<........... > Test Run By root on Sat Nov 22 18:27:58 2014 > Native configuration is i686-pc-linux-gnu > > === libstdc++ tests === > > Schedule of variations: > unix > > Running target unix > Using /tools/share/dejagnu/baseboards/unix.exp as board description > file$ > Using /tools/share/dejagnu/config/unix.exp as generic interface file > for$ > Using > /usr/local/src/gcc-4.7.1/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/config/default.exp$ > Running > /usr/local/src/gcc-4.7.1/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/libstdc++-abi/ab$ > FAIL: libstdc++-abi/abi_check <---------------- > Running > /usr/local/src/gcc-4.7.1/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/libstdc++-dg/con$ > Running > /usr/local/src/gcc-4.7.1/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/libstdc++-pretty$ > > === libstdc++ Summary === > > # of expected passes 8756 > # of unexpected failures 1 > # of expected failures 43 > # of unsupported tests 197 > make[4]: *** [check-DEJAGNU] Error 1 > make[4]: Leaving directory > `/usr/local/src/gcc-build/i686-pc-linux-gnu/l$ > make[3]: *** [check-am] Error 2 > make[3]: Target `check' not remade because of errors. > -----------------------8<........... >
Paul, I saw in one of your posts that, since make exited with an error, you thought the failure in the test was likely to be serious. But what I see above seems just to be a normal exit after all tests have been run, and one of them had a error. I mean make exited with an error (normal, there's one!), but after doing its whole job. Did you try to run ../gcc-4.9.2/contrib/test_summary? If test results are present for gcc, g++, libstdc++ and a few others I do not remember (libraries have different names now), then everything went OK. Now, you have never posted (unless I missed something) the error in e2fsprog. Maybe it would be easier to analyze that error? Pierre -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page Do not top post on this list. A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style
