[lfs-dev] glibc-2.23

Bruce Dubbs bruce.dubbs at gmail.com
Sat Feb 20 12:49:07 PST 2016

Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Douglas R. Reno wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 3:18 PM, Bruce Dubbs <bruce.dubbs at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I've built the new glibc in my sandbox and will start doing a -rc2 when my
>>> full build completes in the next hour or so.
>>> I did look at the test failures:
>>> XPASS: elf/tst-protected1a
>>> XPASS: elf/tst-protected1b
>>> FAIL: posix/tst-getaddrinfo4
>>> FAIL: posix/tst-getaddrinfo5
>>> Summary of test results:
>>>        2 FAIL
>>>     2401 PASS
>>>       84 XFAIL
>>>        2 XPASS
>>> I've updated the text to add posix/tst-getaddrinfo5 to the list of known
>>> failures.  When I look at the text we have now, I also see:
>>> * The rt/tst-cputimer1 and rt/tst-cpuclock2 tests have been known to fail.
>>> The reason is not completely understood, but indications are that minor
>>> timing issues can trigger these failures.
>>> * The math tests sometimes fail when running on systems where the CPU is
>>> not a relatively new Intel or AMD processor.
>>> * Other tests known to fail on some architectures are
>>> malloc/tst-malloc-usable and nptl/tst-cleanupx4.
>>> I have already removed the text about tst-protected1{a,b}.
>>> I have not seen any of these in a long time. Should I remove them?
>> Are these i686 specific?
> I don't think so, but I'm not sure.  I can do a build on my 686 and check,
> but that wouldn't hold off proceeding with BLFS testing.  I'll try to set
> it up tonight and let it run to check.  A full build with all tests takes
> about 17 hours on that system.

Well it took 18 hours, but the 7.9-rc2 built on my 686.  For glibc, I had 
one additional test failure: nptl/tst-cleanupx4.  That is mentioned above.

I also had a bunch of gcc test failures not in x86-64.  There were 8 
failures using different options with c-c++-common/asan/null-deref-1.c, 1 
failure for gcc.dg/pr45352-1.c, and 1 for gcc.dg/pr63914.c. The test 
failures that are in the x86_64 build, directory_iterator.cc and 
recursive_directory_iterator.cc fail here too.

The only other failure I see that differs from x86-64 is:

105-inetutils-1.9.4:FAIL: ping-localhost.sh

   -- Bruce

More information about the lfs-dev mailing list