Did a test build too. I applied the patch I sent yesterday for binutils.
Le 29/12/2012 02:41, Bruce Dubbs a écrit :
> Following up with results from a build of SVN-20121228
>
>> 071-glibc
>>
> annexc and run-conformtest still fail. cputimer1 passed.
Same here. It might be interesting to compare our results of the
conformance tests. Here is what I have:
ISO...
ISO99...
ISO11...
POSIX...
XPG3...
Total number of tests : 3993
Number of failed tests : 166 ( 4%)
Number of skipped tests : 89 ( 2%)
XPG4...
Total number of tests : 4175
Number of failed tests : 29 ( <1%)
Number of skipped tests : 10 ( <1%)
UNIX98...
Total number of tests : 4701
Number of failed tests : 14 ( <1%)
Number of skipped tests : 6 ( <1%)
XOPEN2K...
Total number of tests : 6825
Number of failed tests : 13 ( <1%)
Number of skipped tests : 5 ( <1%)
XOPEN2K8...
Total number of tests : 7083
Number of failed tests : 11 ( <1%)
Number of skipped tests : 1 ( <1%)
POSIX2008...
Total number of tests : 6305
Number of failed tests : 7 ( <1%)
Number of skipped tests : 0 ( 0%)
>
>> 075-binutils
>>
> ifunc.exp still fails. Searching google indicates a problem with the
> test, not the libraries or programs.
Actually, it is cured by the patch I sent yesterday. BTW, that patch is
needlessly complicated. It is just a matter of moving a brace from
one line to another.
>
>> 079-gcc
> I now get:
>
> FAIL: 22_locale/time_get/get_weekday/char/38081-2.cc execution test
> This indicates a problem with the ru_RU.UTF8 locale. I'm not
> sure why this fails. We haven't changed gcc, but it may be an issue
> with glibc-2.17 which installs the locales.
>
> FAIL: libmudflap.c++/pass55-frag.cxx
> ERROR: couldn't compile regular expression pattern: out of memory
>
> I have 3G of ram, but this is an extreme torture test. I don't know how
> much memory is actually needed.
Same here, with 4G of ram.
> [...]
I also got a failure in the coreutils test suite:
FAIL: test-getlogin
===================
test-getlogin.c:48: assertion failed
I think the assertion is ASSERT(isatty (0)), which of course is false
when running jhalfs.
Actually, that assertion is changed from ASSERT(! isatty (0)) to
ASSERT(isatty (0)) by the sed in the book.
So that, after the sed, the chunk of C code is:
ASSERT (isatty (0));
fprintf (stderr, "Skipping test: stdin is not a tty.\n");
return 77;
which is kind of contradictory...
Thinking more about it, there is no way to have that assertion
work in all cases in LFS:
The reason is that getlogin returns NULL and raises the error
ENOENT when utmp cannot be read (according to man getlogin).
But utmp does not exist in the chroot environment!
it is created dynamically in /var/run by the bootscripts...
Then comes the ASSERT(isatty (0)) (or the negated one in the
original test). If you are running tests interactively, it does not
fail but says wrongly that the test is skipped because of input
not being a tty. If you do not run them interactively, it fails...
Well, maybe not a big deal anyway...
Regards
Pierre
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
