[lfs-dev] LFS SVN current build results
bruce.dubbs at gmail.com
Sat Dec 29 12:21:04 PST 2012
Pierre Labastie wrote:
> Did a test build too. I applied the patch I sent yesterday for binutils.
> Le 29/12/2012 02:41, Bruce Dubbs a écrit :
>> Following up with results from a build of SVN-20121228
>> annexc and run-conformtest still fail. cputimer1 passed.
> Same here. It might be interesting to compare our results of the
> conformance tests. Here is what I have:
> Total number of tests : 3993
> Number of failed tests : 166 ( 4%)
> Number of skipped tests : 89 ( 2%)
> Total number of tests : 4175
> Number of failed tests : 29 ( <1%)
> Number of skipped tests : 10 ( <1%)
> Total number of tests : 4701
> Number of failed tests : 14 ( <1%)
> Number of skipped tests : 6 ( <1%)
> Total number of tests : 6825
> Number of failed tests : 13 ( <1%)
> Number of skipped tests : 5 ( <1%)
> Total number of tests : 7083
> Number of failed tests : 11 ( <1%)
> Number of skipped tests : 1 ( <1%)
> Total number of tests : 6305
> Number of failed tests : 7 ( <1%)
> Number of skipped tests : 0 ( 0%)
I have exactly the same numbers.
>> ifunc.exp still fails. Searching google indicates a problem with the
>> test, not the libraries or programs.
> Actually, it is cured by the patch I sent yesterday. BTW, that patch is
> needlessly complicated. It is just a matter of moving a brace from
> one line to another.
Which brace? ld-lib.exp line 1265?
>> I now get:
>> FAIL: 22_locale/time_get/get_weekday/char/38081-2.cc execution test
>> This indicates a problem with the ru_RU.UTF8 locale. I'm not
>> sure why this fails. We haven't changed gcc, but it may be an issue
>> with glibc-2.17 which installs the locales.
>> FAIL: libmudflap.c++/pass55-frag.cxx
>> ERROR: couldn't compile regular expression pattern: out of memory
>> I have 3G of ram, but this is an extreme torture test. I don't know how
>> much memory is actually needed.
> Same here, with 4G of ram.
> I also got a failure in the coreutils test suite:
> FAIL: test-getlogin
> test-getlogin.c:48: assertion failed
> I think the assertion is ASSERT(isatty (0)), which of course is false
> when running jhalfs.
> Actually, that assertion is changed from ASSERT(! isatty (0)) to
> ASSERT(isatty (0)) by the sed in the book.
> So that, after the sed, the chunk of C code is:
> ASSERT (isatty (0));
> fprintf (stderr, "Skipping test: stdin is not a tty.\n");
> return 77;
> which is kind of contradictory...
> Thinking more about it, there is no way to have that assertion
> work in all cases in LFS:
> The reason is that getlogin returns NULL and raises the error
> ENOENT when utmp cannot be read (according to man getlogin).
> But utmp does not exist in the chroot environment!
> it is created dynamically in /var/run by the bootscripts...
> Then comes the ASSERT(isatty (0)) (or the negated one in the
> original test). If you are running tests interactively, it does not
> fail but says wrongly that the test is skipped because of input
> not being a tty. If you do not run them interactively, it fails...
> Well, maybe not a big deal anyway...
No, it's not a big deal because we don't use coreutils' login. We use
the one from shadow.
More information about the lfs-dev