On Fri, 2012-04-27 at 02:24 +0100, Ken Moffat wrote:
> From here, the explanations for the changes look good (and explain
> some things that are generally not well known), and my test results
> are no worse, so congratulations to both Jeremy and Bruce for doing
> this.
Indeed. Thanks to both Je
On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 01:18:27AM +0100, Ken Moffat wrote:
>
> On svn-20040419 x86_64, with static libraries mostly suppressed, I
> saw failures in
> gcc -
> 3 unexpected failures in libitm, but none were specifically listed
Correction : that was 3 *expected* failures - I can't read :)
Wit
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 Mon, 2012-04-23 at 16:34 -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Pierre Labastie wrote:
> > Le 23/04/2012 22:34, Bruce Dubbs a écrit :
> >> Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> >>
> >>> It appears there are multiple ways to isolate the programs we need in
> >>> Chapter 6 to /tools. For us, the simpler the better. I think
Pierre Labastie wrote:
> Le 23/04/2012 22:34, Bruce Dubbs a écrit :
>> Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>>
>>> It appears there are multiple ways to isolate the programs we need in
>>> Chapter 6 to /tools. For us, the simpler the better. I think we ought
>>> to do a little more testing, but it's looking good.
Le 23/04/2012 22:34, Bruce Dubbs a écrit :
> Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>
>> It appears there are multiple ways to isolate the programs we need in
>> Chapter 6 to /tools. For us, the simpler the better. I think we ought
>> to do a little more testing, but it's looking good.
> I'm still in the initial bui
Le 23/04/2012 23:01, Bruce Dubbs a écrit :
> Matt Burgess wrote:
>
>> '../gcc-4.7.0/contrib/test_summary>> $TEST_LOG 2>&1', hence giving the
>> appearance that the tests were run twice. I wonder whether that 2nd
>> command should just have 'role=nodump' in it to prevent jhalfs from
>> running it?
Matt Burgess wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-04-23 at 15:34 -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>
>> It did seem to run the tests twice. I don't know why. If we can get it to
>> run
>> once, it would save a lot of time. The results we identical on both runs.
>
> I don't think it did, Bruce. Were you looking at
On Mon, 2012-04-23 at 15:34 -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> It did seem to run the tests twice. I don't know why. If we can get it to
> run
> once, it would save a lot of time. The results we identical on both runs.
I don't think it did, Bruce. Were you looking at your jhalfs logs by
any chance
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> It appears there are multiple ways to isolate the programs we need in
> Chapter 6 to /tools. For us, the simpler the better. I think we ought
> to do a little more testing, but it's looking good.
I'm still in the initial build, but the toochain seems to have done OK. One
On 4/23/12 12:28 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> I also think we will need a paragraph or two in the "What's New" section
> explaining the changes.
Yeah, that might be good. Also a review of section 5.2 to make sure all
statements there are still correct.
JH
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/lis
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> On 4/22/12 11:36 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>> gcc-pass2
>
> [snip]
>
>> Configure:
>> Remove -B/tools/lib/ from CC
>> Remove configure options
>> --with-native-system-header-dir=/tools/include
>> --without-ppl
>> --
On 4/23/12 12:00 PM, Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> The --with-native-system-header-dir=/tools/include option is actually an
> addition, not a removal. Everything else looks like it's correct, Bruce.
> (I think I forgot to remove the startfiles patch from chapter 3 and the
> patches.ent. I'll take a l
W
On 4/22/12 11:36 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> gcc-pass2
[snip]
> Configure:
> Remove -B/tools/lib/ from CC
> Remove configure options
> --with-native-system-header-dir=/tools/include
> --without-ppl
> --without-cloog
The --with-native-syste
DJ Lucas wrote:
> On 04/22/2012 10:36 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>> I've been studying Jeremy's changes and want to summarize them here.
>>
>>
>
>
> Asking for a technical review? :-) Both methods achieve the goal!
I wasn't asking for a technical review. I was studying the changes to
understand th
On 04/22/2012 10:36 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> I've been studying Jeremy's changes and want to summarize them here.
>
>
Asking for a technical review? :-) Both methods achieve the goal!
Now for a quick, non-technical overview of the effect on the book. You
have reduced the amount of lines in comm
18 matches
Mail list logo
