Matthew Burgess wrote:
As to the bugs that Jeremy mentioned, noone has seen
them on the straight x86->x86 builds that LFS is currently focusing on,
and therefore I don't see a problem with our current approach.
gcc-4.x/patched glibc-2.3.5 based LFS builds have proven stable for a
fair number of people, so I personally don't think it's worth the effort
to either a) Go back to gcc-3.4.x or b) Introduce a potentially unstable
glibc snapshot.
For what it's worth I built my current LFS with current glibc cvs on Sunday and
it doesn't seem unstable at all. I didn't need to patch glibc to build it with
gcc-4.0.1. The glibc test suite had three fails, two of them were familiar
maths test-double and test-idouble, and one new (well, new to me)
c++-types-check. I don't think it was important though, everything compiled
fine and has run well for two days.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
