LFS 5.0, Ch. 5, Gcc-3.3.1, Pass 2

Joel Miller cheeziologist at mail.isc.rit.edu
Thu Jan 8 11:05:50 PST 2004


On Wed, 07 Jan 2004 22:47:03 +0100, Albert REINER 
<areiner at tph.tuwien.ac.at> wrote:

<snip>
> |                 === gcc Summary ===
> |
> | # of expected passes            732
> | # of unexpected failures        16030
> | # of unexpected successes       33
> | # of expected failures          20
> | # of unresolved testcases       4947
> | # of unsupported tests          86
> | Couldn't determine version of /cdrom/lfs/gcc-build/gcc/xgcc: spawn 
> failed
> | ...
> |                 === g++ tests ===
> |
> | Schedule of variations:
> |     unix
> |
> | Running target unix
> | ...
> |                 === g++ Summary ===
> |
> | # of expected passes            222
> | # of unexpected failures        7041
> | # of unexpected successes       30
> | # of expected failures          964
> | # of unresolved testcases       102
> | # of untested testcases         9
> | # of unsupported tests          14
> | Couldn't determine version of /cdrom/lfs/gcc-build/gcc/testsuite/../g++
> `----

Normally I tell people not to worry about the tests in chapter five, but 
this is a huge amount of errors. If it were me, I would start all over 
again, but then again if it were me I wouldn't have run the test in 
chapter five anyway, so maybe you can try going on and seeing what 
happens, but that is a massive error count.

> I did not run the tests for Tcl and Expect. The check for devpts
> (`expect -c "spawn ls"`) was OK, as was the "Locking in" sanity
> check. I did apply both patches.
>
> - Should I worry about those results? Should I `make install` and just
>   see what comes of it, or do I have to go back?

You can try to go on and just see what the tests look like in chapter six. 
That's what I'd do I think, but I also usually have a decent amount of 
time on my hands too if I need to start all over, so take that into 
consideration.

>
> - If I have to go back: How far should that be?  And while I am at it:
>   Should I switch to the 2.4.24 kernel because of the mmrepap.c
>   vulnerability?  If so, do I need to take any extra precautions?

Again, if it were me and I had to go back I would redo all of chpater 
five, aka starting all over again, but I can't say if that would be 
absolutely necessary. As for 2.4.24 it is a drop in replacement. No 
changes to instructions are necessary.

>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Albert.

-- 
Registered LFS User 6929
Registered Linux User 298182




More information about the lfs-support mailing list