From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mp1 ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by ms11 with LMTPS id arCLG+al1l8sPwAA0tVLHw (envelope-from ) for ; Sun, 13 Dec 2020 23:38:14 +0000 Received: from aspmx1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by mp1 with LMTPS id UIf9Fual1l/1AwAAbx9fmQ (envelope-from ) for ; Sun, 13 Dec 2020 23:38:14 +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 96CBA94038E for ; Sun, 13 Dec 2020 23:38:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1]:51402 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1koawM-0006FG-V4 for larch@yhetil.org; Sun, 13 Dec 2020 18:38:10 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:50714) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1koawE-0006Ez-68 for bug-guix@gnu.org; Sun, 13 Dec 2020 18:38:02 -0500 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:39176) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1koawD-0001TL-UA for bug-guix@gnu.org; Sun, 13 Dec 2020 18:38:01 -0500 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1koawD-0006GJ-Nw for bug-guix@gnu.org; Sun, 13 Dec 2020 18:38:01 -0500 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#41669: Cross-compiled powerpc64-linux bootstrap-tarballs not reproducible Resent-From: Chris Marusich Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-guix@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2020 23:38:01 +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: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= Received: via spool by 41669-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B41669.160790263224011 (code B ref 41669); Sun, 13 Dec 2020 23:38:01 +0000 Received: (at 41669) by debbugs.gnu.org; 13 Dec 2020 23:37:12 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:50722 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1koavP-0006FD-Kk for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 13 Dec 2020 18:37:12 -0500 Received: from mail-pj1-f47.google.com ([209.85.216.47]:35591) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1koavN-0006Ez-Tv for 41669@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 13 Dec 2020 18:37:10 -0500 Received: by mail-pj1-f47.google.com with SMTP id b5so5527119pjl.0 for <41669@debbugs.gnu.org>; Sun, 13 Dec 2020 15:37:09 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:to:cc:subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id :user-agent:mime-version; bh=cZZl9As+oUobuS6gtFW0qWSzjVJT1cbtpzhX6/HUEc0=; b=d+M3ccVt3pdnvoPMCTvAk65N0iU33GPuLktNAx5qFJXYLIBBNe/IigNGeDt+BKXY0I EX3bDHtWxJKMocC2VBpGYP3RWEEnt/BxUs8+pFC22g2Y0qKLgokVV9yR7PNCB2HzBe9f tvXu4X9hjLATlgoaTLXOxEOsDm1oLI2+6meHspvlTsisGfxuUW+veNsbkLOfRmhK3dB+ s+CkaLLMxZRfvIBFBu622awfbNS4aX2epieXnx+RyIi9xOPXza5JEbR4RJ7R/HgM2KDu aGxpjVegGTGAZgzsDQX65Hbr761VMXTG6wX0F9cQZs1WmojEgABopYe9RsxuVw2Mnn4R pD8A== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:references:date:in-reply-to :message-id:user-agent:mime-version; bh=cZZl9As+oUobuS6gtFW0qWSzjVJT1cbtpzhX6/HUEc0=; b=ZZDLlyzAwZTLi/+GyYif8J6T8M4F2yWXCnH2YilgwBsNsdbUsJpN2f6z0zYH+G82+I CWW/Nv+de+IGBBloaS2R3fZaMBeP9c6PUjVD8EtvzWQobt0v1EI676ffXlyXtNzp+K1U QBYs/xpEuOfD7ZVlSxCcppT/XnvePIhiEiBB6cxq4rlTO0ix5up08CX3737Gjo0p+PbJ u70++0dk3juNEyT5AUgfJjMsvFjSnmD4h3cdsRtUkuw8lRQsGdGa8MeCwNQghVL88Zar 4Gz8AP+3BQHbB0ii0eNlCHHl/54MhClFPq7A0W8he2DV5GA6wh8423B7eaFEq6abK0D3 5f2g== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531+AN7hKgyfZt4v5fJFG3EHl6NpdmO5I0y6+faSiZsmSvT6raGO QSevDyd2diqwBoisGJtFlA0= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyea/hHAjBs13+5IJpbR3Bc2f7ONfzSGlBTdLaKMhOc2Y2WCcnPKFukyVeySRegp4qpTo+tpw== X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:9681:b029:db:fd65:d10e with SMTP id n1-20020a1709029681b02900dbfd65d10emr2462177plp.6.1607902623937; Sun, 13 Dec 2020 15:37:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from garuda-lan ([2601:601:9d00:688::e6b]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id c10sm17235286pfo.159.2020.12.13.15.37.02 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Sun, 13 Dec 2020 15:37:02 -0800 (PST) From: Chris Marusich 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> Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2020 15:36:58 -0800 In-Reply-To: <87pn5wzwcf.fsf@gnu.org> ("Ludovic \=\?utf-8\?Q\?Court\=C3\=A8s\=22'\?\= \=\?utf-8\?Q\?s\?\= message of "Mon, 05 Oct 2020 14:33:04 +0200, Mon, 5 Oct 2020 15:47:10 +0300") Message-ID: <87pn3dth0l.fsf_-_@gmail.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature" 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: -1.80 Authentication-Results: aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=fail (headers rsa verify failed) header.d=gmail.com header.s=20161025 header.b=d+M3ccVt; dmarc=fail reason="SPF not aligned (relaxed)" header.from=gmail.com (policy=none); 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: 96CBA94038E X-Spam-Score: -1.80 X-Migadu-Scanner: scn1.migadu.com X-TUID: p1uNBK5tfcud --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, I tried to do some experiments to see if this problem happens with the current GCC (version 10). I built GCC 10 (not cross-compiling) on an x86_64 system using Guix with substitutes on Debian. (I tried without substitutes, too, but some of the dependencies failed to be built for unrelated reasons.) I then manually copied the /gnu/store and related files (except for the GCC 10 output paths) from Debian onto a Fedora machine, and I rebuilt GCC 10 there using Guix (again, not cross-compiling). The output on Fedora was identical to that of Debian. Of course, the configuration Guix uses to build GCC 10 is a bit different from the one used to (cross-)build the powerpc64-linux bootstrap GCC, but it's still an interesting data point. In particular, GCC 10's libstdc++.a was identical on Debian and Fedora, so I suppose maybe they've fixed that issue in the more recent versions. I also tried to use Guix (the current version, from master branch - I ran guix pull today) to cross-build gcc-10 for the powerpc64-linux-gnu target on both Debian and Fedora x86_64 systems, starting from scratch with substitutes enabled: guix build --target=3Dpowerpc64-linux-gnu -e '(@ (gnu packages gcc) gcc-10)' On both Debian and Fedora, the build of gcc-10.2.0.drv failed with the following error: checking for -fPIC -shared... yes configure: error:=20 Building GCC with plugin support requires a host that supports -fPIC, -shared, -ldl and -rdynamic. This basically just means that we can't cross-build gcc-10 for powerpc64-linux-gnu out of the box on x86_64 with current Guix. I was hoping that the builds would succeed, and I would be able to find out if cross-building gcc-10 in this way would create non-reproducible artifacts. I was hoping maybe I could ask for help from the GCC community if that were the case. But since it doesn't even build, the results of that experiment were not very useful. 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. Ludovic Court=C3=A8s writes: > Hi Chris, > > Chris Marusich skribis: > >> From e3d1778a86dfd171d59d91eb01417faaf63dfa17 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 >> From: Chris Marusich >> Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2020 14:25:43 -0700 >> Subject: [PATCH] gnu: Disable libstdc++ in bootstrap GCC. >> >> Fixes part of: . >> >> * gnu/packages/make-bootstrap.scm (%gcc-static) [#:configure-flags]: Add >> --disable-libstdcxx to disable building the libstdc++-v3 directory. > > [...] > >> + ;; In this GCC version, libstdc++.a is not reproduci= ble: >> + ;; https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=3D4= 1669 >> + "--disable-libstdcxx" > > Does it have any effect with GCC > 4.7? My understanding is that it > builds its libstdc++ no matter what. > > Also, if it=E2=80=99s just libstdc++.a that=E2=80=99s problematic (orderi= ng issue in the > .a archive?), perhaps we can use --disable-shared? > > My 2=C2=A2 (I didn=E2=80=99t follow the whole discussion), > Ludo=E2=80=99. Actually, --disable-shared is already present in the configure options. My understanding is that libstdc++.a is a statically linked library (perhaps I am mistaken...?), so I don't see why the presence or absence of --disable-shared would affect it. I thought that option was just supposed to control whether or not to build shared libraries. Efraim Flashner writes: > On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 11:52:48PM -0700, Chris Marusich wrote: >> Hi everyone, >>=20 >> Efraim Flashner writes: >>=20 >> > Is this a file we actually need during the bootstrap process? Can we >> > "work around it" by just deleting it? I've spent all of my spare Guix time trying to debug this reproducibility issue first, and half a year has passed without progress as a result. I think we should use the bootstrap binaries we built half a year ago, and move on with life. 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. In any case, I don't think we should wait any longer. =2D-=20 Chris --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCAAdFiEEy/WXVcvn5+/vGD+x3UCaFdgiRp0FAl/WpZsACgkQ3UCaFdgi Rp0gVhAAjuI5BRuZXxOJ27NV8ss5267kHg/PYGoiq+zU25h9baMLOce8nQhHptlc IzMSD295le/3RofgCfXBVDIcorwmeVzFEKfCriaTYyM+yC0sbeMWyjGf30HzMKgY Gpy39xY/4CB2GZznsF2bxBv6RRKmNdOeagg2ns7AgFpo8fzuA4gv/+YxNi2C/ZcK hfdfjWmNQztAl10e0At4Kg3bSwL7S/w0cPLR3B3FfKh9lc14UNri2XlnBIFn1TDX BWQKmPL8XqlZgYpG1nlNuL1XnUptTgieoC1Waxslu4bJgFMmBTCPSqvqlM6mD8tR EPMOTKJtAjOOe8iDjYpz6PlfQgewJ7Mwp3wK5nPNmr+ynEn457YO3ws/J9hCWeAX vGER2mJlf1cH06hs6mIwT7yP+NyZIGSMVwbFfU1/4lqk6oZ7ASXIPLRjhLb1hDto a6/rCvrjAi8Lu2Hk+0RvqRf5fsmMOp5sUWtbpDqIQbOKMROGtg5x4/Kc3esg/RO5 OddvzIeOSYw6SMWFfi8Ql98Cbdw1hkJ6ALP9GG90lEq38zgboItVncVLRFV8p689 JQqTIYBgdIOdLSXit3WodLtEyHZ86ZorxXDFKDZ9iUPujOLDBicss+x3CoD50HU0 X5CH6e5+5lh2cg2IZLFP9et6xzjLetkiEITbASYoJ+ngCMxOQ3Q= =2Fs0 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--