[blfs-dev] Proposition for the GCC page

Ken Moffat zarniwhoop at ntlworld.com
Sun Feb 10 15:13:52 PST 2013


On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 11:15:14PM +0100, Pierre Labastie wrote:
> 
> Amazingly, I have less unsupported tests than you in gcc (and many less
> XPASS or FAIL), but more unsupported tests in g++. I also have many
> more results for gfortran (see attached file).
> But, the results which can be compared (gcc, g++,
> libstdc++, libitm, libgomp, libmudflap) are the same as during an LFS
> build for me.
> I also built and tested on a 32 bit virtual machine, and have almost
> the same
> results. All the libmudflap tests pass, though.
> 
> Regards
> Pierre

 My memory says that the libmudflap tests on 64-bit have always had
a lot of errors, but that 32-bit seemed a lot better.  But until
last week's LFS-7.2 build I hadn't built 32-bit on x86 for at least 4
years so it is theoretically possible that some versions were worse.

ĸen
-- 
das eine Mal als Tragödie, das andere Mal als Farce



More information about the blfs-dev mailing list