On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 02:18:40AM +0100, Ken Moffat wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 08:43:43PM +0100, Ken Moffat wrote:
>
> Still doing this after chapter 6 is complete, but at a differnet
> line in the same file. Oddly, if I try 'make' *after* the error it
> looks as if it is going to complete
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 08:43:43PM +0100, Ken Moffat wrote:
> For i?86, when we force it to build for m486 we also add -O3. I've
> been using -O3 for glibc on x86_64 in case it turns out to be
> beneficial. On my old single processor machines, I doubt that it
> helped, but my suspicions about it
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 07:58:25PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Ken Moffat wrote:
> >
> > gcc.c-torture/compile/limits-exprparen.c and 1 was in
> > gcc.dg/cpp/_Pragma.c
>
> That may be an issue with stack size. `ulimit -s`
>
>-- Bruce
I was using 16384 for that.
ĸen
--
das eine Mal als Tr
Ken Moffat wrote:
>
> gcc.c-torture/compile/limits-exprparen.c and 1 was in
> gcc.dg/cpp/_Pragma.c
That may be an issue with stack size. `ulimit -s`
-- Bruce
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above informati
On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 03:34:01PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>
> I'm still in the initial build, but the toochain seems to have done OK. One
> problem with gcc-4.7 is that the tests take a *very* long time. On my system
> which is not really slow, it took over an hour and a half to run the tes
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 06:01:25PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>
> Well initrd is already in BLFS. :)
>
So, I need to leave BLFS. No, I knew it was there, only joking.
> > But, my current failure to build with -O3 notwithstanding, why only
> > on m486 and not x86_64 ?
>
> Well I don't know, b
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 11:57:47PM +0100, Matt Burgess wrote:
>
> No idea, Ken. Looking at Fedora, they've always built x86_64 with O3 as
> well (as well as many other arches too). Maybe it was simply because,
> at the time, LFS only targetted/tested x86 and therefore to err on the
> side of cau
Ken Moffat wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 10:42:40PM +0100, Matt Burgess wrote:
>> On Tue, 2012-04-24 at 16:18 -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Thanks, Matt - I got as far as r8885 but took a break and didn't
> find the ticket. I don't particularly care what DIY do or did, but
> if Fedora did it, w
On Tue, 2012-04-24 at 23:35 +0100, Ken Moffat wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 10:42:40PM +0100, Matt Burgess wrote:
> > On Tue, 2012-04-24 at 16:18 -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> > > Ken Moffat wrote:
> > >
> > > > Thanks. So, why do we do it on 32-bit x86 ? My memory says that
> > > > Greg propo
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 10:42:40PM +0100, Matt Burgess wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-04-24 at 16:18 -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> > Ken Moffat wrote:
> >
> > > Thanks. So, why do we do it on 32-bit x86 ? My memory says that
> > > Greg proposed it, something along the lines of "it's what upstream
> > > re
On Tue, 2012-04-24 at 16:18 -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Ken Moffat wrote:
>
> > Thanks. So, why do we do it on 32-bit x86 ? My memory says that
> > Greg proposed it, something along the lines of "it's what upstream
> > recommend", but I could be mistaken.
>
> I can't recall and I don't want to
Ken Moffat wrote:
> Thanks. So, why do we do it on 32-bit x86 ? My memory says that
> Greg proposed it, something along the lines of "it's what upstream
> recommend", but I could be mistaken.
I can't recall and I don't want to research it right now.
-- Bruce
--
http://linuxfromscratch.or
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 03:02:02PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Optimize-Options.html
>
> -O3 turns on
> -finline-functions
> -funswitch-loops
> -fpredictive-commoning
> -fgcse-after-reload
> -ftree-vectorize
> -fipa-cp-clone
>
> I know that inline functions ca
Ken Moffat wrote:
> For i?86, when we force it to build for m486 we also add -O3. I've
> been using -O3 for glibc on x86_64 in case it turns out to be
> beneficial. On my old single processor machines, I doubt that it
> helped, but my suspicions about it are actually raised by results on
> my ph
For i?86, when we force it to build for m486 we also add -O3. I've
been using -O3 for glibc on x86_64 in case it turns out to be
beneficial. On my old single processor machines, I doubt that it
helped, but my suspicions about it are actually raised by results on
my phonon which definitely has en
On Tue, 2012-04-24 at 14:29 -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Running the same program as root fails.
>
> sudo make check TESTS=test-getlogin
>
> The program is doing:
>
> buf = getlogin();
> name = getenv( "USERNAME" );
>
> And failing if they don't match. In my case,
>
> name=root
> buf=bdubbs
>
Matthew Burgess wrote:
> I had a thought last week that this omission of the setuid bit is what's
> causing the test
> failures in the gnulib tests included in the latest version of coreutils.
> I'll see if I
> can find time this week to test that theory out.
The only test that fails is test-g
On 4/23/12 11:42 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> That's it. I think Jeremy has done a great job.
Thanks :) glad it worked well for you.
JH
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Le 24/04/2012 11:00, Matthew Burgess a écrit :
>
> 1) sudo chmod a=rx,u+s /tools/bin/su in chapter 5 coreutils
> 2) Dropped the getlogin.c sed from chapter 6 coreutils
>
> The test still fails. It appears to be because of the way that jhalfs is
> setting things
> up. The test assumes you will ha
On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 12:01:33 -0600, Matthew Burgess
wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 12:48:37 -0500, Bruce Dubbs
> wrote:
>
>> I'm in the middle of a jh build right now. Just finishing up Chapter 5.
>> I'll take a look when it completes. The toolchain built without
> complaint.
>
> Thanks. Note
20 matches
Mail list logo
