Ken Moffat wrote: > What I'm reporting here are the following - > > 1. bc - 10 failures, all in a similar style > > the first is > > Failed: > index = 97 > val1 = 1338334719204269500461736408706115029076717.4572136445 > val2 = 1338334719204269500461736408706115029076717.45721364460012
My result is identical. I think it's internal to the math co-processor hw. I've seen this for years. Noted in the book. > All the other failures show a shorter value in val1, but the > number of digits varies across the tests. > Interestingly, the last screen of the check log just shows a lot > of lines reporting Total tests: 300, Total failures: 0 among a few > other things, so it is easy to overlook these failures (and anyway > they almost certainly don't matter). That's just the last set of tests not a sum of all tests. > 2. gcc > Running /building/gcc-4.8.1/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/asan/asan.exp ... > FAIL: g++.dg/asan/asan_test.C -O2 AddressSanitizer_HugeMallocTest > Ident((char*)malloc(size))[-1] = 0 output pattern test, should match > is located 1 bytes to the left of 2726297600-byte Seems to pass for me on x86_64. > and > Running > /building/gcc-4.8.1/libmudflap/testsuite/libmudflap.c++/c++frags.exp > ... > FAIL: libmudflap.c++/pass41-frag.cxx ( -O) execution test > FAIL: libmudflap.c++/pass41-frag.cxx (-O2) execution test > FAIL: libmudflap.c++/pass41-frag.cxx (-O3) execution test This has been around for *years*. > 3. glibc > make: *** [check] Error 2 > - pretty much as expected, I think Yes. > 4. inetutils - > Failed at pinging ::1. Do you have IPv6 enabled in the running kernel? > FAIL: ping-localhost.sh > > 5. texinfo. > FAIL: test_scripts/formatting_unknown_nodes_renamed.sh > > Not sure if Matt's patch fixes this. Don't know, but I had: FAIL: prove.sh formatting_unknown_nodes_renamed.sh passed for me. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
