This is the mail archive of the
libc-hacker@cygnus.com
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: ["Carlos Wijders" <computec@sr.net>] libc/968: 'make check' fails with glibc-2.1
- To: Zack Weinberg <zack@rabi.columbia.edu>
- Subject: Re: ["Carlos Wijders" <computec@sr.net>] libc/968: 'make check' fails with glibc-2.1
- From: Andreas Jaeger <aj@arthur.rhein-neckar.de>
- Date: 17 Feb 1999 17:55:53 +0100
- Cc: libc-hacker@cygnus.com
- References: <199902171624.LAA00959@blastula.phys.columbia.edu>
>>>>> Zack Weinberg writes:
ZW> On 17 Feb 1999 15:51:33 +0100, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
>>>>>>> Andreas Schwab writes:
>>
AS> Andreas Jaeger <aj@arthur.rhein-neckar.de> writes:
AS> |> Therefore we shouldn't use $(native-compile) for isomac (and neither
AS> |> for posix/annexc).
>>
AS> This is wrong. Both are designed to be run on the *host*, not the target.
AS> That means that they can even run when cross-compiling. The sources of
AS> the programs are independent of the target environment. They only run the
AS> target compiler as a child.
>>
>> The problem is not running those binaries but compiling them!
>>
>> The glibc2 FAQ advises to move /usr/include away when upgrading from
>> libc5 to glibc2 - and if you do so, make check will fail since those
>> two binaries can't be *compiled*. If they could be compiled, there
>> wouldn't be a problem.
ZW> This mess is fixed in my revised test framework. The header tests are
ZW> compiled without reference to the system headers, and examine only the
ZW> headers provided by the just-built libc plus the compiler's headers.
Sounds fine!
Ok, then let's change the thread;-) : When and how should your revised
framework be added to glibc 2.1?
Andreas
--
Andreas Jaeger aj@arthur.rhein-neckar.de jaeger@informatik.uni-kl.de
for pgp-key finger ajaeger@aixd1.rhrk.uni-kl.de