patches for tools?

Ken Moffat ken at kenmoffat.uklinux.net
Wed Jun 15 02:45:30 PDT 2005


On Wed, 15 Jun 2005, Chakkaradeep C C wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> >  Heh, last time I looked at an SRPM was for X.org, just after the gentoo
> > patches picked up a ton of stuff from RedHat - from memory, many of
> > those patches were very old and for very obscure hardware (and none of
> > them solved my problem).  But, if the big-name rpm distros are now
> > mostly patching to fix test failures, I guess that is a good sign.
>
> i have checked in several systems and gcc does report a test failure
> in libstdc++ tests, and the test_summary produced will not be accurate
> but very near.These kinda things should be taken into consideration
> because, gcc might work with these test failures,but what if other
> tool depending upon this feature of gcc complain at a later stage?..so
> my first step is to look for the patches available for gcc-3.4.1.i
> think i have to look into other distros src.rpm as you have mentioned
> above.
>

 I'm using the LFS-6.1-testing versions (gcc-3,4,3), libstdc++ is fine
here.  You're saying that your test_summary doesn't match what you
logged from running make check ?  I've just compared one of mine (for a
Celeron III) and they look the same to me.


>
> as far as now,i dont think binutils (lfs version) has got problems
> because they themselves are providing some patches and also glibc is
> better than gcc :-( in terms of failures,eventhough we may have to
> tweak some timeout variables or the test may fail if there is no
> genuine intel or athlon as mentioned in the docs.but are they
> safe?....when i had my P4 machine with a Mercury Motherboard, i got
> some problems with glibc's make check,mainly math tests.now i have
> upgraded my machine to original ASUS board and AMD Sempron , and when
> i built lfs,i didnt get ANY error with glibc's make check.so,how do we
> come out of this or is this the nature of glibc?
>
> thanks in advance,
>
> with regards,
> C.C.Chakkaradeep
>

 There was a comment on lkml a few weeks ago about HJL's binutils
patches, but I don't recall what the consensus was.  As to 'safe',
without extensive testing, the best you can ever say is "works for me".

I try not to comment on the glibc testsuite, because I *really* don't
understand it.

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




More information about the lfs-support mailing list