On 06/13/2018 06:42 AM, Hazel Russman wrote:
On Tue, 12 Jun 2018 20:11:10 +0100
Ken Moffat <zarniwh...@ntlworld.com> wrote:

On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 06:29:20PM +0100, Hazel Russman wrote:
Building LFS 8.1 on my Samsung laptop, I was surprised to see a large number of 
math errors in the chapter 6 glibc check:

Do I need to rebuild and, if so, can anyone suggest what parameters I might need to use to avoid a repetition?

The proof of the pudding is in the eating!  Probably very few
people, if any, are using this CPU to build and test packages such
as glibc.  Usually, a test failure does not cause any noticeable
problems at runtime.

I would suggest you continue.

ĸen
That's my preferred solution too, for obvious reasons! But your advice puzzles 
me all the same. If the test results really don't matter, even when you get a 
lot of errors, why does the book emphasise the need to carry out these tests 
for glibc, binutils, gcc and the three gcc libraries?

<quote>
Important:
In this section, the test suite for Glibc is considered critical. Do not skip 
it under any circumstance.
</quote>


Because the book targets x86_64 (and to a certain extent x86). On those systems the number of failures is very few. The tool chain (binutils, glibc, and gcc) is critical to the rest of the book and undocumented failures there would cascade throughout the rest of the book.

  -- Bruce
--
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

Reply via email to