On 06/03/2017 12:23, José Carlos Carrión Plaza wrote: > Hello co-listers: > > In LFS-8.0 I’ve got 1143 unexpected failures in chapter 6 compilation of > gcc-6.3.0. > > I have experience on LFS (my first versión was 5.1.1). > > I have never problems with Chapter 6 compilation of GCC (except the errors > indicated on LFS book). > > Now I’ve done several changes on standard LFS method and I suspect of them. > > My host system is an IBM xSeries 306m with LFS 7.9 (32bits without systemd). > Working without problems like a server LAMP and a Motif Desktop from a year > aprox. with static /dev devices (without udev). > > Now I wanted to migrate to LFS 8.0 (3bits) being the root LFS partition on a > SSD. In order to maintain the minimum I/O on SSD (/dev/sde on host system) > during the compilation of LFS: > > 1.- I made three partitons on SSD: one for LFS 8.0 /boot (/dev/sde1 on host > system) , one for LFS 8.0 root partition (/dev/sde2 on host system) and the > third reserved for future LFS version. > > 2.- All partitions with JFS filesystems (always I’ve worked with JFS without > problems). > > 3.- I mounted the partitions > > mount /dev/sde2 /mnt/lfs > mount /dev/sde1 /mnt/lfs/boot > > 4.- I created a /sources and /tools on a host system HDD. > > 5.- I’ve create the symbolic links: > > /mnt/lfs/tools -> /tools (note the reverse symbolic link vs. LFS Book) > /mnt/lfs/sources -> /sources > > 6.- Chapter 5 go until the end without problems. All compiling I/O went to > the host system HDD. > > 7.- At the beginning of Chapter 6, before chrooting, I did: > > rm /mnt/lfs/tools > mkdir /mnt/lfs/tools > > mount —bind /dev /mnt/lfs/dev > mount -vt devpts devpts /mnt/lfs/dev/pts -o gid=5,mode=620 > mount -vt proc proc /mnt/lfs/proc > mount -vt sysfs sysfs /mnt/lfs/sys > mount -vt tmpfs tmpfs /mnt/lfs/run > mount —bind /tools /mnt/lfs/tools > mount —bind /sources /mnt/lfs/sources > mount —bind /tmp/mnt/lfs/tmp > > 8.- I entered on chroot environment without problems. The directories /tools > and /sources was there. > > 9.- I compiled chapter 6 packages until mpc-1.0.3 without problems. Only > glib-2.25 showed an unexpected "io/tst-open-tmpfile” error. I thought it was > caused by a missing kernel option. > > 10.- All sanity checks on "6.10. Adjusting the Toolchain” passed OK. > > 11.- In chapter 6 gcc-6.3.0 phase “make -k check” generates five “unexpected > failures” on libstdc++ and ¡1143 unexpected failures! on gcc Summary. > > 11.- “make -k check” log show 168 distinct tests failed: > > experimental/filesystem/iterators/directory_iterator.cc > experimental/filesystem/iterators/recursive_directory_iterator.cc > experimental/filesystem/operations/exists.cc > experimental/filesystem/operations/is_empty.cc > experimental/filesystem/operations/temp_directory_path.cc
I have the same failures on a conventional HDD. > gcc.dg/cpp/trad/include.c And this one too > gcc.target/i386/pr65105-2.c > (plus 161 on gcc.target/i386/mpx) But not those > > 12.- Host system log shows 118 messages like: > > Mar 6 01:44:31 titan kernel: pr59667.exe[5706]: segfault at 0 ip > 08048580 sp bfca9620 error 6 in pr59667.exe[8048000+1000] > Mar 6 04:05:18 titan kernel: null-1.exe[15696]: segfault at 0 ip > 0804866e sp bfebe190 error 4 in null-1.exe[8048000+1000] > > I suspect on a race condition when I/O goes through "mount —bind” > > Is it secure to continue on Chapter 6? > > I wouldn't say yes without at least knowing what those errors mean. I am not sure the segfaults are unexpected. For example pr59667.c intentionally writes to a null pointer, to test error reporting in ubsan. If pr59667 does not appear in the FAILed tests, I'd say all is clean (for that test). For the other failing tests: if you haven't removed the directory, you should be able to find some kind of test logs. To Kuba: the gcc test framework appends.exe to the executable names. Not sure why. Regards, 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
