gcc test failures
bworthalex at yahoo.com
Sun Mar 13 20:48:52 PDT 2011
On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 12:50:43PM -0700, Alex Bosworth wrote:
> I don't think this is a hardware problem as none of the other packages fail
>their tests and I don't encounter any crashes or errors during normal use. As
>far the disk space and memory are concerned I do have about 768MB of RAM with
>1GB swap with several GBs of free disk space. I have compiled LFS/BLFS a few
>times before this and I never had any problems then. As I'm using JHALFS, it
>includes gcc and a few other packages from custom optimizations. So it has
>nothing to do with the custom optimizations at least not directly.
> >I'm always dubious about adding -O3 when a package defaults to -O2.
> >I know that Greg used to use it for glibc in DIY, so it's probably ok
> >in that, but for gcc I would immediately suspect it if you get
> > Dunno if jhalfs supports changing the flags for individual
> >packages, I don't use it.
> >das eine Mal als Tragödie, das andere Mal als Farce
> >Oops ! My bad !! I meant to say jhalfs excludes gcc and a few other from
>custom optimizations. I have checked to make sure and I don't see any of the
>flags I have set in the gcc build/test logs.
> >I did not test memory requirement in a while, but as far as I remember, gcc
>required at least 2.5 GB of memory. That is RAM + swap. Either use a swap file
>or set your swap to 3GB and try again.
> > Good luck,
Like I mentioned before, I compiled LFS/BLFS and gentoo on this machine and
never have had any prblems. Only recently (about a a week ago), I upgraded the
gentoo gcc build and it compiled just fine (I didn't have the test phase enabled
though). The first time I build LFS, my laptop had only 562MB of RAM and gcc
compiled/tested just fine !! Unless the memory requirements have changed for gcc
4.5.x I believe 768MB shouldn't be a problem.
> >Don't be too quick to write off hardware problems. Building gcc is well known
> >for uncovering latent hardware faults, just as it did when I first built it in
> >the mid '90s and kept hitting the 'signal 11' error. When I build my firewall
> >on my quad-core desktop (using 'make -j 4' for most packages), only two
> >packages get the CPU up to 60C and hold it there for 1-3 minutes: gcc and the
> >kernel. The kernel build is mostly 'busy work'. But the gcc build exercises a
> >lot of the CPU and RAM; if there's a heat weakness or other hardware
> >instability, building gcc may well uncover it.
> >To be sure, I'm not saying it *is* a hardware problem. But if it only happens
> >to GCC, it could be hardware-related..
That MIGHT be it. I just noticed that the heatsink fan seems to be not
functioning, only the CPU fan is working. That explains why my laptop has been
running so quietly since the last few weeks (I used to wonder why, now I know
I were making use of "-j2" make option, I wonder if would make a difference if
I set it to "-j1" and lower the priority for make (perhaps set it to +20 ?) and
see if that helps to keep the heat low !?
I won't be able to test it out until a while, as I will be out of town. I will
be taking my laptop with me, but not sure if I would get a chance to use it.
Thanks for all the help. I guess I will have to come back and report, once I've
had time to give it another try.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the lfs-support