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 EOJJAMUf11//dgAA0tVLHw (envelope-from ) for ; Mon, 14 Dec 2020 08:18:13 +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 IMTAN8Qf118dOQAA1q6Kng (envelope-from ) for ; Mon, 14 Dec 2020 08:18:12 +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 24B27940396 for ; Mon, 14 Dec 2020 08:18:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1]:60276 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1koj3a-0003IF-KJ for larch@yhetil.org; Mon, 14 Dec 2020 03:18:10 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:41328) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1koj3S-0003Hb-KM for bug-guix@gnu.org; Mon, 14 Dec 2020 03:18:02 -0500 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:39421) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1koj3S-0001ms-Cv for bug-guix@gnu.org; Mon, 14 Dec 2020 03:18:02 -0500 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1koj3S-00022N-7I for bug-guix@gnu.org; Mon, 14 Dec 2020 03:18:02 -0500 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#41669: Cross-compiled powerpc64-linux bootstrap-tarballs not reproducible Resent-From: Efraim Flashner Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-guix@gnu.org Resent-Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2020 08:18:02 +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=B41669.16079338587784 (code B ref 41669); Mon, 14 Dec 2020 08:18:02 +0000 Received: (at 41669) by debbugs.gnu.org; 14 Dec 2020 08:17:38 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:50963 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1koj33-00021S-Gt for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 14 Dec 2020 03:17:38 -0500 Received: from flashner.co.il ([178.62.234.194]:51978) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1koj31-00021D-Ju for 41669@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 14 Dec 2020 03:17:36 -0500 Received: from localhost (unknown [5.102.238.249]) by flashner.co.il (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5B60F400E4; Mon, 14 Dec 2020 08:17:29 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2020 10:17:21 +0200 From: Efraim Flashner Message-ID: References: <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> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="JRM4f1yYltQp8k+u" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87pn3dth0l.fsf_-_@gmail.com> X-PGP-Key-ID: 0x41AAE7DCCA3D8351 X-PGP-Key: https://flashner.co.il/~efraim/efraim_flashner.asc X-PGP-Fingerprint: A28B F40C 3E55 1372 662D 14F7 41AA E7DC CA3D 8351 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: -2.41 Authentication-Results: aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=none; dmarc=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: 24B27940396 X-Spam-Score: -2.41 X-Migadu-Scanner: scn1.migadu.com X-TUID: JshML5HS5vXu --JRM4f1yYltQp8k+u Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, Dec 13, 2020 at 03:36:58PM -0800, Chris Marusich wrote: > Hi, >=20 > I tried to do some experiments to see if this problem happens with the > current GCC (version 10). >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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: >=20 > guix build --target=3Dpowerpc64-linux-gnu -e '(@ (gnu packages gcc) gcc-1= 0)' >=20 > On both Debian and Fedora, the build of gcc-10.2.0.drv failed with the > following error: >=20 > checking for -fPIC -shared... yes > configure: error:=20 > Building GCC with plugin support requires a host that supports > -fPIC, -shared, -ldl and -rdynamic. >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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. >=20 > Ludovic Court=C3=A8s writes: >=20 > > 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]: A= dd > >> --disable-libstdcxx to disable building the libstdc++-v3 directory. > > > > [...] > > > >> + ;; In this GCC version, libstdc++.a is not reprodu= cible: > >> + ;; https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug= =3D41669 > >> + "--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 (orde= ring 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. >=20 > 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. >=20 > Efraim Flashner writes: >=20 > > 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? >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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. >=20 > In any case, I don't think we should wait any longer. As far as powerpc64 vs powerpc64le, I'll let those with the hardware have more of a say, they'll be the ones using it. As far as the bootstrap binaries go, I don't remember having this much pushback with my binaries for aarch64 (just a request to rebuild with guile-2.0.14 since it was reproducible), and I'm not sure how much Janneke had with the Hurd binaries but I don't think it was this much. The ultimate goal anyway is to replace them with artisanally crafted mes binaries, and I understand we want to have them as reproducible as possible, but I don't think it's fair to keep this architecture out when we've let other ones in with similar reproducible problems. --=20 Efraim Flashner =D7=90=D7=A4=D7=A8=D7=99=D7=9D = =D7=A4=D7=9C=D7=A9=D7=A0=D7=A8 GPG key =3D A28B F40C 3E55 1372 662D 14F7 41AA E7DC CA3D 8351 Confidentiality cannot be guaranteed on emails sent or received unencrypted --JRM4f1yYltQp8k+u Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAABCgAdFiEEoov0DD5VE3JmLRT3Qarn3Mo9g1EFAl/XH40ACgkQQarn3Mo9 g1F2OQ/+IhXOhx+T/vTIGuINNrtMsoKqdHdGDlzxZOpaLVp7mp/vb/O8S5EPsHD+ yryb8CuSo5FktYZ/qbRHLIO9TgKKzZe08nklB1ZZQTP1ZUFwwrHvBIbntWk1JQUm s8/slZwZyZBOp/NjjM5+7ypBiW7ml2pA1vLVHvyrWoDCc2n5r1p1T0t2rwwUSbRO zAzTzArMVHyWWeugzbB8MsjMLzSJquyZsyznB4yY31s+e8Kv6+pL+W+3u80bcfp0 h9BWS2fqvtck1vjVQu6T1KNyqbgGJicjqwpt+y6vJpIhxR7Lltg346saJxqmzOHy zTKHFZJBkmKF9N3PSGlif2DHyuK/QtXT1GxMcCgvoThrzt+mx9JNm6MP8eVWGu5f Typ/3ncskStf+ybf2n+vmV4FDMDwT9KhB+N3W1zo54jSC9hZ3LWHXfK11jnzhhyb L50SbyokTVwqhGZOrtvgh3el9Zgzg0+scJikjvHYIoJppX8m3M+QX6vCwhXFqpFa +UuZobypZwr2G+AGZk4EiUWUEDSdfXaFtnmOfXHMXj9D0Uyl/i4+DXDKNOMnburk XD6HlRv5C+Ncb/c5AuOjZXtjt1vL2+929+Jt1T+4DIEqMQxBJe8RQdsRtGOTOWLT Twn0lmkK/miuls1sMKmYqzkHmshvn8gG1ynvQr6TuCYkFR/lk2w= =6SXH -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --JRM4f1yYltQp8k+u--