On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 02:19:21PM -0700, Paul Rogers wrote: > > During the glibc tests, I was able to find the cause of the errors > > with a quick search, so I knew they weren't a problem. I am unable to > > determine whether the errors are serious or not. > > > > The following is the result of piping "make check" to "grep FAIL": > > I think the most prudent assumption is errors in glibc are "significant > until proven otherwise". But I fear you've "grepped-away" too much. My > recommendation would be to "tee" the console log during "make check" > (and "CMMI" too for that matter) to files, then use "less" to actually > look at what else the tests are trying to tell you with "/Error".
Paul, please look at the subject line - the failures were in binutils, not glibc. Noam, for the first failure FAIL: Link with zlib-gabi compressed debug output the book says: The test 'Link with zlib-gabi compressed debug output' is known to fail. But for the others I have no idea. I see that most, or all, of them failures were releated to LTO (link-time optimization) [ as well as the LTO tests I googled one of the pr tests you listed ] so probably they happened during the ld tests and I wonder if my own tests (x86_64, zero failures in binutils tests for any of my 4 different builds of LFS-7.9, and zlib-gabi did not fail for me) perhaps did not run those tests for some reason. The failures probably get documented in files, but without a problematic build of my own I have no idea where those files might be. All I can suggest is that you look at the full output, see where it is running (i.e. which directory names) when the failures are reported, and then look for those directories and see what they contain. Is there something odd about your hardware ? Nowadays, i686 tends to count as odd because hardly anybody here builds recent LFS on it. My only other comment is that I hope you were not running parallel make for the tests (e.g. -j4) - on gcc that used to work, and the contrib script would then massage the results into order, but in the last year or two I got all manner of weird failures in gcc/g++ tests so I now always use -j 1 for 'make check' except in automake where the book specifies -j4. For normal runs of make I continue to use -jN where N is between 2 and 8, it's only in the testsuites that I expect problems. Sorry I don't have any useful suggestions. ĸen -- `I shall take my mountains', said Lu-Tze. `The climate will be good for them.' -- Small Gods -- 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
