On Feb 16, 2016 9:22 PM, "Bruce Dubbs" <[email protected]> wrote: > > Bruce Dubbs wrote: >> >> Douglas R. Reno wrote: >>> >>> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 7:48 PM, Bruce Dubbs <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> I've gone ahead and committed changes to incorporate patches for recent >>>> upstream commits. After a full build, I'm a little uncomfortable about >>>> the >>>> gcc patch. It is 7648 lines and the build shows several unexpected >>>> failures that were not present before. >>>> >> >>>> === gcc Summary === >>>> >>>> # of expected passes 114794 >>>> # of unexpected failures 26 >>>> # of expected failures 262 >>>> # of unsupported tests 1794 >>>> >>>> ------------------- >>>> >>>> How should we approach this? The easy way is to not apply the new patch. >>>> Additionally I do not know what the patch is supposed to fix. >>>> >>>> How should we go on this? I will hold off on -rc2 until we can reach a >>>> consensus. >> >> >>> I am inclined to leave the patch out. Just in time actually, as I will run >>> a build overnight for -rc2, and I will see if these still appear without >>> the patch. I can easily run another build if the consensus it to leave it >>> in the book. These test results look very eerie. >> >> >> I'm running a test right now without the patch to compare. Chapter 6 gcc >> started about 20 minutes ago. > > > gcc is done. No gcc or g++ unexpected failures (2 in libstdc++ that we've seen before). > > I'm going to remove it form -dev. > > > -- Bruce > Ok, I will remove the commented sections from systemd tomorrow, unless DJ beats me to it :-)
Douglas R. Reno
-- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
