QLFS project announcement
J. Scott Edwards
sedwards at xmission.com
Wed Aug 25 06:20:51 PDT 2004
On Tue, 24 Aug 2004, T_B wrote:
> "J. Scott Edwards" <sedwards at xmission.com> wrote in message
> news:Pine.LNX.4.61.0408230645590.13668 at xmission.xmission.com...
>> On Sun, 22 Aug 2004, Archaic wrote:
>> Would it be a good idea to try to build HLFS without any of the security
>> patches and then if that works add the security patches one at a time
>> until I find out what is causing the failure?
> I am experiencing the same problems with glibc build in chapter 6 as Jan
> Mattila reported earlier and you seem to be reporting here. I was following
> the CVS HLFS book that is available here
> Now since the only difference between the build of glibc in chapter 5 and
> chapter 6 is the patches applied to gcc, I assume that this may be the
> underlying cause of the problems. So I proceeded with the assumption that
> maybe it is not glibc that has a problem in chapter 6 but that the test
> suite has a problem and is reporting errors falsely because they have not
> been modified to accommodate the changes that occur as a result of the gcc
I think you may be onto something. I don't remember now which tests I had
fail, but I do remember that it was some numbers that it was complaining
about and I examined the results and they appeared to be correct to me. I
will try to build it again and do what you did in Ch.6 make -k check and I
will report back which tests I fail.
BTW - I am on a Pentium 4 as well, could it be this is related to a
specific type of CPU? It seems strange to me that different CPU's could
get different mathematical results. Could a P4 get a (slightly) different
answer on a floating point operation than say PIII and it not be a bug in
the CPU? Like is there fuzz in the least significant bit or something?
More information about the hlfs-dev