From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mp0 ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by ms11 with LMTPS id 8HuSMzgk11+5GgAA0tVLHw (envelope-from ) for ; Mon, 14 Dec 2020 08:37:12 +0000 Received: from aspmx1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by mp0 with LMTPS id SJRsLzgk11+gRQAA1q6Kng (envelope-from ) for ; Mon, 14 Dec 2020 08:37:12 +0000 Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by aspmx1.migadu.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3A547940111 for ; Mon, 14 Dec 2020 08:37:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1]:36656 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kojLy-0006B0-Ci for larch@yhetil.org; Mon, 14 Dec 2020 03:37:10 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:45422) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kojLq-0006AW-GT for bug-guix@gnu.org; Mon, 14 Dec 2020 03:37:02 -0500 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:39443) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kojLq-00042r-8d for bug-guix@gnu.org; Mon, 14 Dec 2020 03:37:02 -0500 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1kojLq-0002VR-60 for bug-guix@gnu.org; Mon, 14 Dec 2020 03:37:02 -0500 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#41669: Cross-compiled powerpc64-linux bootstrap-tarballs not reproducible Resent-From: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-guix@gnu.org Resent-Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2020 08:37:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 41669 X-GNU-PR-Package: guix X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: Chris Marusich Received: via spool by 41669-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B41669.16079349799581 (code B ref 41669); Mon, 14 Dec 2020 08:37:02 +0000 Received: (at 41669) by debbugs.gnu.org; 14 Dec 2020 08:36:19 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:50989 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1kojL9-0002UT-HC for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 14 Dec 2020 03:36:19 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:52182) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1kojL8-0002UG-27 for 41669@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 14 Dec 2020 03:36:18 -0500 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:48580) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kojL2-0003xS-3l; Mon, 14 Dec 2020 03:36:12 -0500 Received: from [2a01:e0a:1d:7270:af76:b9b:ca24:c465] (port=38080 helo=ribbon) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1kojL1-0004GU-7H; Mon, 14 Dec 2020 03:36:11 -0500 From: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= References: <874krtnvk8.fsf@gmail.com> <87y2p4mqe2.fsf@gmail.com> <87a6xu2xrj.fsf@gmail.com> <20200913062858.GC1100@E5400> <87wo0hqbb3.fsf@gmail.com> <874krtnvk8.fsf@gmail.com> <87y2p4mqe2.fsf@gmail.com> <87a6xu2xrj.fsf@gmail.com> <20200913062858.GC1100@E5400> <87wo0hqbb3.fsf@gmail.com> <87pn5wzwcf.fsf@gnu.org> <87pn3dth0l.fsf_-_@gmail.com> X-URL: http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/ X-Revolutionary-Date: 24 Frimaire an 229 de la =?UTF-8?Q?R=C3=A9volution?= X-PGP-Key-ID: 0x090B11993D9AEBB5 X-PGP-Key: http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/ludovic.asc X-PGP-Fingerprint: 3CE4 6455 8A84 FDC6 9DB4 0CFB 090B 1199 3D9A EBB5 X-OS: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2020 09:36:09 +0100 In-Reply-To: <87pn3dth0l.fsf_-_@gmail.com> (Chris Marusich's message of "Sun, 13 Dec 2020 15:36:58 -0800") Message-ID: <874kkoyebq.fsf@gnu.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list X-BeenThere: bug-guix@gnu.org List-Id: Bug reports for GNU Guix List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: 41669@debbugs.gnu.org, =?UTF-8?Q?L=C3=A9o?= Le Bouter , Maxim Cournoyer , Vincent Legoll Errors-To: bug-guix-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org Sender: "bug-Guix" X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_IN X-Migadu-Spam-Score: -1.31 Authentication-Results: aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=none; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=gnu.org; spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of bug-guix-bounces@gnu.org designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=bug-guix-bounces@gnu.org X-Migadu-Queue-Id: 3A547940111 X-Spam-Score: -1.31 X-Migadu-Scanner: scn1.migadu.com X-TUID: RCn85HTwU46v Hi Chris, Chris Marusich skribis: > It's been almost half a year now, and we're not really any closer to > figuring out why the cross-built GCC bootstrap binary is > non-reproducible. It seems counter-productive to obsess about making > this specific binary reproducible, although I wish it could be so. > > What do you think about using the bootstrap binaries we built half a > year ago, and proceed with bootstrapping efforts? To be totally honest, > I'm feeling pretty exhausted by this bug, since I have spent so many > days trying to unravel it, and I haven't made any significant progress. > With no clear end in sight, I would really prefer to move on instead of > blocking the entire bootstrapping effort on this reproducibility bug. > The reproducibility of the bootstrap binaries is important, but simply > having any bootstrap binaries at all is also important. I think I have > done my due diligence to try making them reproducible. Most of them > are, but I just can't figure out why GCC isn't. I think it would be > best to proceed with the binaries we have. I didn=E2=80=99t follow the whole discussion nor did I try to investigate myself, but thanks a lot for going to great lengths trying to identify the issue; this is an impressive amount of work, and I can only share your disappointment. Given this effort, I agree that it may be best at this point to move on and start with these non-reproducible binaries. At least, the problem is now documented. > At this point, it might even make more sense to try bootstrapping for > powerpc64le instead of powerpc64, since the rest of the world seems to > be gravitating toward the little-endian variant on POWER9 hardware, and > thus various programs out there are more likely to be better tested on > powerpc64le than powerpc64. Yes, my understanding is that other people, in particular Tobias Platen and dftxbs3e, were looking at powerpc64le, so perhaps it=E2=80=99s a good i= dea to concentrate on that one? Anyhow, please let me know if/when bootstrap binaries should be uploaded to ftp.gnu.org (with a signed message). When updating bootstrap.scm to refer to them, please include the commit ID used to build them in the commit message. Thanks, Ludo=E2=80=99.