On Oct 23, 2018, at 2:37 PM, Ken Moffat <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 06:33:35PM +0000, Hans Malissa wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Once again, I'm confused by the output from a test suite, in this case it's
>> gcc-8.2.0 in chapter 6.21 of 8.3-systemd on x86_64.
>> When I run the tests as described in the book, su nobody -s /bin/bash -c
>> "PATH=$PATH make -k check" exits with:
>>
>> [...]
>> # of expected passes 54
>> make[4]: Leaving directory
>> '/usr/src/gcc-8.2.0/build/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/libatomic/testsuite'
>> make[3]: Leaving directory
>> '/usr/src/gcc-8.2.0/build/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/libatomic/testsuite'
>> make[3]: Entering directory
>> '/usr/src/gcc-8.2.0/build/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/libatomic'
>> true DO=all multi-do # make
>> make[3]: Leaving directory
>> '/usr/src/gcc-8.2.0/build/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/libatomic'
>> make[2]: Leaving directory
>> '/usr/src/gcc-8.2.0/build/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/libatomic'
>> make[1]: Leaving directory '/usr/src/gcc-8.2.0/build'
>> make: *** [Makefile:2235: do-check] Error 2
>> make: Target 'check' not remade because of errors.
>>
>> But when I run ../contrib/test_summary I don't see any 'unexpected
>> failures'. I don't see any failures at all, and no errors either. So I'm not
>> quite sure which error make -k check is referring to. What went wrong here?
>> I'm pasting the output of ../contrib/test_summary below.
>> Thanks a lot,
>>
>> Hans
>>
> (snipped test_summary, it is similar to what I got on an i3 skylake
> although I had different totals for expected passes and unsupported
> tests in both g++ and libstdc++.)
>
> As always with testsuites, the detail can happen a lot earlier. My
> run of make check on that machine was logged, and the first 12
> lines, up to the point where it started to compile test progs, were:
>
> make[2]: Nothing to be done for 'check'.
> true DO=all multi-do # make
> make btest stest ztest edtest ttest ctestg ctesta
> make[2]: Nothing to be done for 'check'.
> make[2]: Entering directory '/building/gcc-8.2.0/build/fixincludes'
> autogen -T ../../fixincludes/check.tpl ../../fixincludes/inclhack.def
> make[2]: autogen: Command not found
> make[2]: *** [Makefile:176: check] Error 127
> make[2]: Leaving directory '/building/gcc-8.2.0/build/fixincludes'
> make[1]: *** [Makefile:3674: check-fixincludes] Error 2
> make[2]: Nothing to be done for 'check'.
> make[3]: Entering directory '/building/gcc-8.2.0/build/libbacktrace'
>
> The Error 127 (no such file) translates becomes Error 2 in the
> check-fixincludes target, and that (plus any other errors, if there
> were any - not in your case) carries through to the final status.
>
> ĸen
Okay, I redirected the output of make -k check to a file, and I do indeed get
something similar, the same ‘Error 127’, right in the beginning:
make[1]: Entering directory '/usr/src/gcc-8.2.0/build'
make[2]: Entering directory '/usr/src/gcc-8.2.0/build/fixincludes'
autogen -T ../../fixincludes/check.tpl ../../fixincludes/inclhack.def
make[2]: autogen: Command not found
make[2]: *** [Makefile:176: check] Error 127
make[2]: Leaving directory '/usr/src/gcc-8.2.0/build/fixincludes'
make[1]: *** [Makefile:3674: check-fixincludes] Error 2
make[2]: Entering directory '/usr/src/gcc-8.2.0/build/gcc'
Making a new config file...
[…]
So that seems to be comparable to what you got.
Does that mean that I can go ahead and install gcc-8.2.0 or is something wrong?
Thanks a lot,
Hans
--
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
