On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 04:10:59PM +0100, Hazel Russman wrote:
> > --
> I assume the test that failed is the one called ld-x86-64/x86-64.exp, unless
> it was running parallel tests on different cores. The processor is an Intel
> Core2 Duo running at 2.80GHz. Flags are "fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8
> apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat pse36 clflush dts acpi mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss ht
> tm pbe syscall nx lm constant_tsc arch_perfmon pebs bts rep_good nopl
> aperfmperf eagerfpu pni dtes64 monitor ds_cpl est tm2 ssse3 cx16 xtpr pdcm
> sse4_1 xsave lahf_lm dtherm" -- if that means anything to you. It doesn't to
> me, I must admit. I've always found hardware a closed book.
>
My log suggests that the ld tests are run from various
ld-descriptivename.exp files, but in the circumstances that is moot.
I just checked my -rc2 log to check my memory, and discovered that
one of the gold tests failed, that got lost in the volume of output.
I've a feeling that is not new.
But like you, the individual flags mean not-a-lot to me (I recognize
cmov, it's what was the difference between i686 and the earlier i589
- although some CPUs from, I think, VIA lacked it, and I recognize a
few others. I'm not particularly aware of the Core2 Duo (I couldn't
justify the cost when they were current), but perhaps it is old
enough to use slow memory.
> Unfortunately I made an unholy mess of that partition and had to clear it
> completely. Now I'm wondering whether to start again immediately or wait for
> the official release.
>
I trashed my -rc1 trying to rebuild glibc in place (to add the flags
which have now been removed re nfs after I failed to build rpcbind),
the current version is ok for that.
If you are going to run all the tests (dunno, maybe you are only
running the important ones) you might want to look at -dev. One of
my suggestions for fixing a perl unescaped brace, I think it was in
make's testsuite, solved _that_ problem : but my results are often
so different from other people's that maybe it only applies to my
builds ;) I intend to reply to that thread at some point, but I've
got too much else happening to prioritise that.
My personal view is that, aside from any issues in testsuites,
LFS-8.1-rc2 will be a good base for BLFS. But for BLFS (as with
8.0) various packages will get upgraded during the -rc stage. And
all of it needs as much testing as possible (i.e. if you already use
an application, does it still work properly for you). But that
ideally needs people to follow the -dev lists, and perhaps to look
at trac to see which tickets might get picked up for 8.1.
Whatever you do, I hope it goes better the next time.
ĸen
--
Truth, in front of her huge walk-in wardrobe, selected black leather
boots with stiletto heels for such a barefaced truth.
- Unseen Academicals
--
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Do not top post on this list.
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style
