On Feb 16, 2016 9:24 PM, "Douglas R. Reno" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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
I take that back, I already did that earlier. Thank you for testing that. My Core2 is still downloading packages!
-- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
