On 4/12/2019 7:47 AM, Pierre Labastie via lfs-dev wrote:
On 12/04/2019 12:37, DJ Lucas via lfs-dev wrote:
Comparison does not work anymore because of some randomization in code
generation... Maybe, It could be disabled by some switch, though. We may
look at what is done for comparing the second and third build of gcc at
the end of a bootstrap.
No, you can't do direct 1:1 comparisons, but you can still compare them
using other tools and attributes. You can't guarantee that they are
identical (they aren't), but you should be able to glean reasonable
assurance that they are functionally equivalent by maybe comparing the
symbol table for executables, and using a tool like abidiff for
libraries (shot in the dark, I haven't actually verified either is a
viable test case).
I'm sure there are lots of holes in the above being that I woke with
it, but thought I'd throw it out there anyway. I think that ticks off
all of the boxes identified in the earlier thread without introducing
more exotic flags, or even existing hacks we currently use for the
toolchain. Thoughts?
It is certainly worth trying, but who will be able to find the time for
doing this? I'm working steadily towards a complete jhalfs automated
LFS/BLFS (some kind of reference build), trying not to ask my fellow
editors to modify their habits, and it takes almost all my free time.
You are absolutely right, I think Ken was alluding to the same. We need
new blood to go and experiment. Look at the changes Xi has put in, has
caught me depending on old assumptions more than once. Jeremy coming
back to assist with JHALFS in whatever capacity he sees fit. More
capable eyes are just plain helpful. Just putting the ideas out there
for now, maybe somebody finds it worth the time, maybe even somebody
outside of the core devs will find it an interesting experiment...or
not. :-/
--DJ
--
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
