On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 04:05:15PM -0800, Paul Rogers wrote:
>
> I can diddle the make check sequence so it doesn't drop out easily
> enough ("make -k check || :"), but I regard that as a very bad habit to
> adopt! The book says running the tests and generally good results is
> critical.
>
Emphasis on *generally*. You appear to have had *one* failed test.
> > Did you try to run ../gcc-4.9.2/contrib/test_summary?
>
> I did the first time it quit. Looked OK.
>
Indeed.
> > > Do you want the bash-4.2 ShellShock patch file posted? It might be
> > > worth an erratum.
> >
> > We are unlikely to do an erratum - LFS has been using 4.3 for some
>
> [ ! some > 2 ]
>
> > years. But I did upload 4.2-fixes-13 in the early stages of the
> > shellshock fixes, and Armin updated it to -14 for later fixes. I
> > still have one or two old desktop systems which I try to keep
> > semi usable.
You are lucky to have the time to nit-pick about how long we have
been using 4.3 ;) Maybe I meant 'releases' and typed 'years'. The
point is that we _minimally_ support our current release.
>
> My patchset goes up to 4.2-53. The ShellShock patches are very recent.
>
You obviously did not understand what I wrote. Take a look at the
dates on those two patches. Our _fixes_ versions use different
numbering from upstream's individual patches.
Also, upstream _has_ now released 4.3.30, instead of just patches.
If you are building 4.2, you could check in case there is a similar
rolled-up tarball.
> > Wish I had seen this before my earlier reply. Yes. 'make -k check'
> > means the check will continue past the first set of errors (i.e.
> > whichever directory fails), but it still reports a failure. I think
> > one failure from "a lot of tests" in gcc (or binutils, or glibc) is
> > not indicative of a crisis.
>
> No, I didn't think so. OK, answer me this, since I'm NOT an automake
> jockey. (Just got a book about it at Powell's by Vaughn, et al., but
> whoa, way above my pay grade!) What's the difference between setting up
> make to anticipate errors and having an error abort the whole make
> process? Is one of the former likely to slip past by accident and turn
> into one of the latter? Does gcc upstream make that sort of error?
>
'make -k' will carry on for as long as it can run dependencies.
Then, it will stop and return the status. If you use it for a
testsuite, it can usually run the remaining tests after error(s).
And then it reports a failure if any test failed. If you were to
use it for a compile, it might continue for a long time until it
tried to link something which used whichever object file(s) had not
been created.
Your 3 questions do not make any sense to me. I do not understand
the phrase "setting up make to anticipate errors". Make always
tests that each individual command completed with status 0, unless
you pass -k to tell it to carry on for as long as it can.
>
> Never have been comfortable with Flash--it's one of those Attack
> Surfaces!
>
I was thinking about things like ffmpeg and some of the AV
libraries. Things which for example use SSE3 variants if they are
available.
ĸen
--
Nanny Ogg usually went to bed early. After all, she was an old lady.
Sometimes she went to bed as early as 6 a.m.
--
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
