On Sun, Mar 25, 2007 at 09:23:39PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>
> Some benchmarks against a 32-bit build would be interesting. My
> understanding is that 64-bit systems have larger binaries, use more ram,
> and are slower the equivalent 32-bit systems unless you are doing some
> fairly serious nu
Fix wrote:
> On 3/26/07, Bruce Dubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Some benchmarks against a 32-bit build would be interesting. My
>> understanding is that 64-bit systems have larger binaries, use more ram,
>> and are slower the equivalent 32-bit systems unless you are doing some
>> fairly seriou
On 3/26/07, Bruce Dubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Some benchmarks against a 32-bit build would be interesting. My
> understanding is that 64-bit systems have larger binaries, use more ram,
> and are slower the equivalent 32-bit systems unless you are doing some
> fairly serious number crunch
Fix wrote:
> Nevertheless, now I've finished building a __pure__ 64-bit *LFS
> without use of the cross compilation, with slight deviations from the
> book. All the libraries now are 64-bit and they're placed in
> {,/usr}/lib instead of {,/usr}/lib64. In order to achieve this, six
> different patc
On 3/21/07, Matthew Burgess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'd be interested if you can reproduce your tens of failures using jhalfs, if
> only to rule out a) mistakes in any build scripts you might be using and/or
> b) mistakes made when copying/pasting/typing the commands from the book.
> scripts
On Tuesday 20 March 2007 02:26, Fix wrote:
> So that I'm waiting for anyone else to confirm or to reject the report.
Using jhalfs r3335 to complete a build of LFS SVN-20070319 on an i686 box,
only annexc and tst-cancel1.out fail for me, and test-installation.pl reports
success too. While the cu
On 3/19/07, Chris Staub <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> It's the test that's run at the end of "make install".
Well, I'd run "make -k check 2>&1 | tee glibc-build-check" just after
"make install", and got a few failures only (including
posix/annexc and a couple of tests failed due to the absence of
Fix wrote:
>
> About what a test are you saying, that which is execute after (in the
> process of) "make install", or about bunch of the small test programs
> that are executed by "make check"? I mean second, and at the time they
> are executing NO libraries are installed in /lib. If, naturally, y
On 3/19/07, Chris Staub <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The command in the book should change it so that the test uses the
> newly-installed libraries in /lib.
About what a test are you saying, that which is execute after (in the
process of) "make install", or about bunch of the small test programs
On 3/19/07, Chris Staub <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, as I mentioned before, it should never have been created anyway.
> The actual problem needs to be fixed, not simply worked around with a
> symlink.
For sure. I've said "a temporary" workaround.
Fix
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman
Fix wrote:
> On 3/19/07, Chris Staub <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> LFS does not work for 64-bit systems.
>
> Yes, I know. But on a i386 system, these tests should be linked
> against /tools/lib/ld-linux.so.2 or against just compiled new linker
> that resides somewhere in glibc-build directory?
>
On 3/19/07, Chris Staub <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> LFS does not work for 64-bit systems.
Yes, I know. But on a i386 system, these tests should be linked
against /tools/lib/ld-linux.so.2 or against just compiled new linker
that resides somewhere in glibc-build directory?
Fix
--
http://linux
Fix wrote:
> On 3/19/07, Chris Staub <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> No, the "test" it is referring to is done at the end of "make install".
>> It even specifies this at the beginning of the text you just
>> copied-and-pasted from the book. If you *are* getting a large number of
>> testsuite error
On 3/19/07, Chris Staub <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No, the "test" it is referring to is done at the end of "make install".
> It even specifies this at the beginning of the text you just
> copied-and-pasted from the book. If you *are* getting a large number of
> testsuite errors, something else i
Chris Staub wrote:
>> Running "make install" in section 6.9.1 I have discovered that perl
>> binary installed in /tools/bin tries to locate its
>> extensions in /usr/local/* directories, however they were installed
>> in /tools/share/perl5/*. Before entering the chroot
>> environment
Fix wrote:
> And two remarks on the LFS-6.2.
>
> 1. Section 6.9.1. Installation of Glibc
>
> [QUOTE]
> When running make install, a script called test-installation.pl
> performs a small sanity test on our newly installed Glibc. However,
> because our toolchain sti
And two remarks on the LFS-6.2.
1. Section 6.9.1. Installation of Glibc
[QUOTE]
When running make install, a script called test-installation.pl
performs a small sanity test on our newly installed Glibc. However,
because our toolchain still points to the /t
17 matches
Mail list logo
