gcc4 and glibc-2.3.x
ken at linuxfromscratch.org
Mon Oct 3 09:40:46 PDT 2005
On Sun, 2 Oct 2005, Andrew Benton wrote:
> Ken Moffat wrote:
>> Well, the snapshot in cross-lfs is surprisingly good, but in general
>> trying to follow glibc CVS is a full-time job for anybody who cares about
>> more than just x86. I haven't built x86 on cross-lfs yet, but if the
>> c++-types-check is a new failure, that would be another reason why trying
>> to follow glibc cvs is often a bad idea (irrespective of whether it's the
>> code or the test program that now fails).
> Well I was going to write back and disagree. That test failure was fixed and
> last weekend after updating glibc it was back to just the usual maths
> test-double and test-idouble failures. But then with this week's glibc, I
> didn't get as far as the tests in chapter 6. At the end of chapter 5,
> configuring perl hangs like so
> patching file hints/linux.sh Hunk #1 succeeded at 52 with fuzz 1 (offset 1
> Hunk #2 succeeded at 314 (offset 32 lines).
> sh Configure -ds -e -Dprefix=/tools -Dstatic_ext=IO Fcntl POSIX
> And there it hangs...ctrl-c won't bring the prompt back. It's not using the
> cpu. Normally the next line is `First let's make sure your kit is complete.
> Checking...' so presumably it's getting stuck doing that
Weird. I've now successfully built cross-lfs for x86 twice using
glibc-20050926 (first time from x86_64-64, second from itself) and
looked in detail at the results. I've got to rebuild at least once more
to try to understand test failures in autofoo (possibly, the coreutils
patch "for udev" fixed these), but that version of gcc works for me.
The only new error was a glibc test failure in wcsmbs/mbrtowc2. The
times to build some of the packages varied greatly on the two runs -
perhaps related to how long the testsuites take to run, e.g. when
waiting for things. I don't have any audio, or indeed a full desktop,
on that box, but it certainly looks promising.
Were you using glibc-20050926, or glibc-2.3-20050926 ? Oh, and did you
definitely include the bash avoid_WCONTINUED patch ?
das eine Mal als Tragödie, das andere Mal als Farce
More information about the lfs-dev