Ran the "make -k check" without the -j option,
after creating a symlink to /usr/local/bin/stty
(noticed many errors about that)
Is this as good a build as I can expect?
Here are the results
(output from config.guess and "gcc -v" are below) :
=== gcc Summary ===
# of expected passes 50284
# of unexpected failures 19
# of expected failures 234
# of unsupported tests 656
=== g++ Summary ===
# of expected passes 19007
# of unexpected failures 1
# of unexpected successes 1
# of expected failures 144
# of unsupported tests 185
=== gfortran Summary ===
# of expected passes 29193
# of expected failures 12
# of unsupported tests 135
=== libstdc++ Summary ===
# of expected passes 5733
# of unexpected failures 1
# of unexpected successes 2
# of expected failures 80
# of unsupported tests 393
=== libgomp Summary ===
# of expected passes 2228
# of unexpected failures 80
# of unsupported tests 9
///////// gcc -v for the new compiler /////////////////
$ /usr/local/gcc-4.4.0/bin/gcc -v
Using built-in specs.
Target: sparc-sun-solaris2.10
Configured with: /big3/src/gcc/src/gcc-4.4.0/configure
--srcdir=/big3/src/gcc/src/gcc-4.4.0 --prefix=/usr/local/gcc-4.4.0
--without-gnu-as --with-as=/usr/ccs/bin/as --without-gnu-ld
--with-ld=/usr/ccs/bin/ld --enable-languages=c,c++,fortran
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.4.0 (GCC)
////// config.guess from the source directory ////////////
$ /usr/local/src/gcc/src/gcc-4.4.0/config.guess
sparc-sun-solaris2.10
Best regards
Amitava
--- On Fri, 5/15/09, Eric Botcazou <[email protected]> wrote:
> From: Eric Botcazou <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: Build of gcc 4.4.0 on Solaris 10 Sparc ok, most tests failed.
> To: "Kaveh R. GHAZI" <[email protected]>
> Cc: [email protected], [email protected]
> Date: Friday, May 15, 2009, 5:20 PM
> > To clarify, is it "make -l #"
> that fails or "make -j #" on Solaris?
>
> "make -j"
>
> > Parallel testing with -j# used to work fine, but
> admitedly its been a long
> > while since I lost my solaris box... (I don't
> know if the load avg based
> > mechanism for -l ever worked.) Is there a PR
> number?
>
> That's already fixed.
>
> --
> Eric Botcazou
>
