patches for tools?
ken at kenmoffat.uklinux.net
Wed Jun 15 06:00:17 PDT 2005
On Wed, 15 Jun 2005, Chakkaradeep C C wrote:
> > 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.
> oh..nice to hear :-), i used Fedora Core 3 as my host and people tell
> me it is because of that gcc tests fails....maily libstdc++...is it
> correct or mayb or is it the gcc version of lfs 6.0??
I can't comment, I didn't build 6.0 and I haven't used fedora as a
> can i use gcc-3.4.3 with binutils-18.104.22.168.2 or i have to go along
> with 6.1 toolchain?
The "safer" way is to use all of the package versions from 6.1 (because
they've been tested together, and the only issue I've seen in blfs was
with dhcp [a gcc error], for which there are patches). OTOH, a point
increase of gcc should be no big deal, but it hasn't been tested by
(many) LFS users. I'm not a toolchain expert.
> > 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".
> please can you elaborate on what you said Ken..i didnt understand what
> you have written :-(..
Turns out the lkml discussion was about the 2.4.31 kernel not
assembling with the latest binutils, which was why I didn't pay a lot of
attention to the thread, so no relevance to 2.6. You mentioned HJL
binutils patches, which was why I referred to this. After looking at
what's in 22.214.171.124.2.2 I don't see why I would want to apply them on an
LFS build (e.g. one had a comment about glibc-2.1 and the mips
Or, if you mean you didn't understand my comments about safety and
testing: none of this is safe - there is No Warranty in free software.
Most problems either show up when upgrading to a newer system (the
'strip' problem with binutils that caused stripped static libs to not be
usable, or something), or they show up when you're deep into BLFS. By
using patches and versions that fewer people have tried, there is more
chance of new problems waiting to be uncovered. The test suites are not
in themselves an indicator that a package works properly, only that it
passes all the tests. Obviously, passing the tests is usually a better
sign than failing tests, but there can be untested areas.
das eine Mal als Tragödie, das andere Mal als Farce
More information about the lfs-support