On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 04:17:37PM -0700, Paul Rogers wrote: > > My P6 build is now complete and it was successful. I was using jhalfs > > to generate the scripts from the book's sources. > > Given that, I went back and double checked my build scripts against the > book for binutils-2.25, libstdc++-4.9.2, Linux API headers-3.19, glibc- > 2.21, & gcc-4.9.2, in Ch5 Pass 2 versions and Ch6. All the commands, > parameters, and verification output in the build scripts match the book > exactly. The host is an elderly i7 running LFS-7.2 i686 system. The > build failed checking GCC in Ch6-17. > Paul,
a quick look at your past few posts (or rather, those which I have received - it's always possible my upstream decided to drop one ) only shows things to do with the headers. My memory of 7.7 is very feint, and in those days my test systems were all AMD, but I do recall that until recently I got various failures in gcc. Indeed, that book uses 'make -k check' because failures ARE expected. If you get only a few, you are probably good to continue. If you get 500+ (been there in LFS-6 on (unsupported) ppc) things have broken. Actually, that reminds me - the contrib script used to let me run the tests in parallel and then summarise the results. At some time in the past couple of years I now recall posting (on -dev) that I was getting a LOT of failures in the c++ tests. In the end, the solution was to use -j1 for the tests. [ snipping stuff about jhalfs because I don't use it - but you probably want the latest version from svn ]. The other thing is that most people who are regularly contributing to this list think 7.7 is *old*. At the moment, anybody doing development testing is discovering the pleasures (in the sense of "this is now undefined behaviour, so we'll trash it") of g++-6.1. Long ago, when there was a lot less in BLFS, and even less of it in my own builds, I thought it would be a good idea to try to keep old releases maintained (against known CVE vulnerabilities). I've given up on that - partly because most old versions do not get vulnerabilities logged, partly because too much broke on the versions of gcc we had happened to use [ the last version of any release is probably fairly good, but random earlier releases can suddenly FTBFS with new versions of packages such as firefox ]. I hope you figure out what the problem is, and that you enjoy your builds, but I don't expect a lot of interest in 7.7. ĸen -- I had to walk fifteen miles to school, barefoot in the snow. Uphill both ways. -- 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
