glibc-2.6.1 test errors

Athena lists at vega.uk.net
Fri Oct 5 13:14:31 PDT 2007


On Friday 05 October 2007 17:31:56 Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
> Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> > On Fri, 5 Oct 2007 07:25:48 -0600, Jeremy Huntwork 
<jhuntwork at linuxfromscratch.org> wrote:
> >> grep Error /mnt/lfs/jhalfs/test-logs/065-glibc
> >> make[3]: [/sources/glibc-build/posix/annexc.out] Error 1 (ignored)
> >>
> >> I'll be running a test on trunk now just to make sure that everything is
> >> kosher.
> >
> > The development book is fine. It looks like those optimizations are
> > causing you problems.
>
> It is known that on different Intel CPUs, glibc chooses at runtime
> different algorithms for certain floating-point operations (grep for
> HWCAP_I386_XMM, for example, which corresponds to SSE support). So here
> it may well be that this part of the Glibc testsuite in fact a testsuite
> for the CPU. For the meaningful comparison of the results, I ask both
> you and the original poster to post the contents of /proc/cpuinfo.
>
> --
> Alexander E. Patrakov


On Friday 05 October 2007 17:31:56 Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
> Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> > On Fri, 5 Oct 2007 07:25:48 -0600, Jeremy Huntwork 
<jhuntwork at linuxfromscratch.org> wrote:
> >> grep Error /mnt/lfs/jhalfs/test-logs/065-glibc
> >> make[3]: [/sources/glibc-build/posix/annexc.out] Error 1 (ignored)
> >>
> >> I'll be running a test on trunk now just to make sure that everything is
> >> kosher.
> >
> > The development book is fine. It looks like those optimizations are
> > causing you problems.
>
> It is known that on different Intel CPUs, glibc chooses at runtime
> different algorithms for certain floating-point operations (grep for
> HWCAP_I386_XMM, for example, which corresponds to SSE support). So here
> it may well be that this part of the Glibc testsuite in fact a testsuite
> for the CPU. For the meaningful comparison of the results, I ask both
> you and the original poster to post the contents of /proc/cpuinfo.
>
> --
> Alexander E. Patrakov


Hello 

As requested my /proc/cpuinfo is attached. 

(Sorry not sure if you guys perfer stuff like this attached or pasted into the 
email body) 

Jeremy: I didn't deviate from chapter 5 at all and the glibc test results 
which i posted were with the default optimization. Strangely dropping the 
optimization back to default seems to increase the math error. 

PS: My apologies in advance if this email arrives twice - for some bizarre 
reason my server (postfix) seemed to throw a wobbler with LFS greylisting!  


Many Thanks
Athena
-------------- next part --------------
processor       : 0
vendor_id       : GenuineIntel
cpu family      : 15
model           : 4
model name      : Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU 3.20GHz
stepping        : 1
cpu MHz         : 3264.781
cache size      : 1024 KB
physical id     : 0
siblings        : 2
core id         : 0
cpu cores       : 1
fdiv_bug        : no
hlt_bug         : no
f00f_bug        : no
coma_bug        : no
fpu             : yes
fpu_exception   : yes
cpuid level     : 5
wp              : yes
flags           : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat pse36 clflush dts acpi mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss ht tm pbe nx constant_tsc pni monitor ds_cpl cid xtpr
bogomips        : 6531.45
clflush size    : 64

processor       : 1
vendor_id       : GenuineIntel
cpu family      : 15
model           : 4
model name      : Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU 3.20GHz
stepping        : 1
cpu MHz         : 3264.781
cache size      : 1024 KB
physical id     : 0
siblings        : 2
core id         : 0
cpu cores       : 1
fdiv_bug        : no
hlt_bug         : no
f00f_bug        : no
coma_bug        : no
fpu             : yes
fpu_exception   : yes
cpuid level     : 5
wp              : yes
flags           : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat pse36 clflush dts acpi mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss ht tm pbe nx constant_tsc pni monitor ds_cpl cid xtpr
bogomips        : 6528.18
clflush size    : 64 


More information about the lfs-dev mailing list