> Randy McMurchy wrote:
>> So, bottom line for me is I don't see any errors other than the
>> math/test-double error in a 32bit multilib build. Both the 64bit
>> multilib and regular LFS (not JH branch) don't get any errors.
>
> Not really the bottom line (yet). Dennis is working on a PowerPC arch.
> Or, at least, the last I checked he was.
Well the situation seems to be degrading slowly. Thus far in Chap6 I have
the following from the GCC testsuite :
=== gcc Summary ===
# of expected passes 42691
# of unexpected failures 6
# of expected failures 115
# of unresolved testcases 1
# of untested testcases 28
# of unsupported tests 390
The FAILures seen were :
FAIL: gcc.c-torture/compile/20001226-1.c -O2 (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gcc.c-torture/compile/20001226-1.c -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer (test
for excess errors)
FAIL: gcc.c-torture/compile/20001226-1.c -O3 -g (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gcc.c-torture/compile/20001226-1.c -Os (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/loop-19.c scan-tree-dump-times MEM.(base: &|symbol: )a, 2
FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/loop-19.c scan-tree-dump-times MEM.(base: &|symbol: )c, 2
The testsuite is still running and I expect that will continue for another
ten hours or so. Again I have no baseline with which to compare and a
generaly sinking feeling about my LFS end result, if I ever get there.
If anyone has words of encouragement .. now would be a good time :-)
Dennis
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
