[lfs-support] Glibc-2.18 Test Suite Failed[SOLVED]
beesnees at grm.net
Thu Oct 24 09:20:19 PDT 2013
On 10/23/2013 06:24 PM, Dan McGhee wrote:
> In fact, I don't think it conducted any tests.
> The commands I use in the glibc-build directory come right out of the book
> make -k check 2>&1 | tee glibc-check-log
> grep Error glibc-check-log
> I do call them from a function defined in a build.conf file called
> check_commands, but that shouldn't make any difference--I think.
> Now that I think about it, the test suite didn't run for very long.
> Maybe 1/2-3/4 hr. I was doing something else. I was really surprised
> when I found the file I make from grepping glibc-check-log empty.
> Yup, no info. And the glibc-check-log looked like everything had
> happened normally with make[1-4] leaving directories until I was in
> the directory containing the source and build directories.
> I checked the error log I generate during the build and the following
> line appeared twelve times:
> make: Circular /usr/src/glibc-2.18/glibc-build/linkobj/libc.so <-
> /usr/src/glibc-2.18/glibc-build/linkobj/libc.so dependency dropped.
> Hopefully putting 2+2 together I googled on this and found:
> commit 5f855e3598a576c35e54623a13b256f3e87fcd4d
> Author: Brooks Moses <bmoses at google.com>
> Date: Thu Oct 3 10:38:14 2013 -0700
> Fix erroneous (and circular) implied pattern rule for
> [BZ #15915] As described in the bug, the pattern rule for lib%.so
> in Makerules includes linkobj/libc.so as a dependency. However, the
> explicit rule for linkobj/libc.so is in the top-level Makefile.
> Thus, the subdirectory makefiles that include Makerules end up
> with an
> erroneous makefile pattern rule for linkobj/libc.so that includes
> itself as a dependency. The result is make warnings whenever rules
> for other .so files are resolved -- and, on occasion, actual makefile
> failures when a race condition causes the implicit rule to
> actually be
> This patch moves the explicit rules for linkobj/libc.so into
> to clear up this problem. It also elaborates a couple of comments
> that I'd initially found confusing.
> at upstream-tracker.org/changelogs/glibc/current/changelog.html
> I don't know how to get this patch, nor do I even know if this is what
> caused the failure. Couldn't find anything "on point" in the support
> or dev archives.
> Any thoughts? How to get the patch? Am I barking up the wrong tree?
Another "red face." I found a logic error in my script. Sorry for the
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the lfs-support