Le 30/04/2014 23:02, Frans de Boer a écrit : > On 04/30/2014 10:53 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote: >> Frans de Boer wrote: >>> Since the day gcc-4.9.0 came out I am trying to get gcc compiled without >>> problems. That is working, by running the tests is a different story. >>> Where gcc-4.8.2 passes the tests, gcc-4.9.0 is failing - without >>> exception - every time on the next tests: >>> >>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> Running /sources-bss/gcc-4.9.0/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tsan/tsan.exp ... >>> FAIL: c-c++-common/tsan/thread_leak1.c -O0 output pattern test, is >>> ================== >>> WARNING: ThreadSanitizer: thread leak (pid=18366) >>> Thread T1 (tid=18371, finished) created by main thread at: >>> #0 pthread_create <null>:0 (libtsan.so.0+0x00000004b0d3) >>> #1 main >>> /sources-bss/gcc-4.9.0/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/tsan/thread_leak1.c:12 >>> (thread_leak1.exe+0x000000000a90) >>> >>> SUMMARY: ThreadSanitizer: thread leak ??:0 pthread_create >>> ================== >>> ThreadSanitizer: reported 1 warnings >>> , should match WARNING: ThreadSanitizer: thread leak.*( >>> | >>> )SUMMARY: ThreadSanitizer: thread leak.*main.*( >>> | >>> ) >>> FAIL: c-c++-common/tsan/thread_leak1.c -O2 output pattern test, is >>> ================== >>> WARNING: ThreadSanitizer: thread leak (pid=18384) >>> Thread T1 (tid=18389, finished) created by main thread at: >>> #0 pthread_create <null>:0 (libtsan.so.0+0x00000004b0d3) >>> #1 main >>> /sources-bss/gcc-4.9.0/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/tsan/thread_leak1.c:12 >>> (thread_leak1.exe+0x000000000942) >>> >>> SUMMARY: ThreadSanitizer: thread leak ??:0 pthread_create >>> ================== >>> ThreadSanitizer: reported 1 warnings >>> , should match WARNING: ThreadSanitizer: thread leak.*( >>> | >>> )SUMMARY: ThreadSanitizer: thread leak.*main.*( >>> | >>> ) >>> Running /sources-bss/gcc-4.9.0/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/ubsan/ubsan.exp ... >>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> >>> and again with g++ >>> >>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> Running /sources-bss/gcc-4.9.0/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/tsan/tsan.exp ... >>> FAIL: c-c++-common/tsan/thread_leak1.c -O0 output pattern test, is >>> ================== >>> WARNING: ThreadSanitizer: thread leak (pid=8094) >>> Thread T1 (tid=8099, finished) created by main thread at: >>> #0 pthread_create <null>:0 (libtsan.so.0+0x00000004b0d3) >>> #1 main >>> /sources-bss/gcc-4.9.0/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/tsan/thread_leak1.c:12 >>> (thread_leak1.exe+0x000000000a70) >>> >>> SUMMARY: ThreadSanitizer: thread leak ??:0 pthread_create >>> ================== >>> ThreadSanitizer: reported 1 warnings >>> , should match WARNING: ThreadSanitizer: thread leak.*( >>> | >>> )SUMMARY: ThreadSanitizer: thread leak.*main.*( >>> | >>> ) >>> FAIL: c-c++-common/tsan/thread_leak1.c -O2 output pattern test, is >>> ================== >>> WARNING: ThreadSanitizer: thread leak (pid=8112) >>> Thread T1 (tid=8117, finished) created by main thread at: >>> #0 pthread_create <null>:0 (libtsan.so.0+0x00000004b0d3) >>> #1 main >>> /sources-bss/gcc-4.9.0/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/tsan/thread_leak1.c:12 >>> (thread_leak1.exe+0x000000000922) >>> >>> SUMMARY: ThreadSanitizer: thread leak ??:0 pthread_create >>> ================== >>> ThreadSanitizer: reported 1 warnings >>> , should match WARNING: ThreadSanitizer: thread leak.*( >>> | >>> )SUMMARY: ThreadSanitizer: thread leak.*main.*( >>> | >>> ) >>> Running /sources-bss/gcc-4.9.0/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/ubsan/ubsan.exp ... >>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> >>> I am using a AMD64, 8GB system. >>> I have rebuild chapter 5 several times over, to the exact letter as in >>> the SVN docs. I did the same for chapter 6, up to gcc-4.9.0. >>> The report Bruce gave (24th) did not mentioned any failure in the gcc >>> tests. So, the question is what is going wrong? >> >> Just to double check, are you using -j1? >> >> I deleted my test log but will be rerunning the full LFS soon and I'll >> do the tests then. Otherwise, it looks like some kind of timing error, >> but that's just a guess. >> >> -- Bruce >> > Yes, I use -j1 by default. > > Well, I hope that it is a timing error, but I wait for your report and > continue from there. I just was curious if I am the only one with this > behavior. > > Frans.
FWIW, I have built lfs twice today, once on a 64 bit virtual machine (no error in gcc tests), and once on a 32 bit virtual machine (1 failure: g++.dg/asan/asan_test.C). Using -j4 on 64 bit and -j2 on 32 bit. Regards Pierre -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
