LFS 5.0, Ch. 5, Gcc-3.3.1, Pass 2
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:
> | === 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
> | ...
> | === 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
> - 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,
Registered LFS User 6929
Registered Linux User 298182
More information about the lfs-support