GNU bug report logs - #41669
Cross-compiled powerpc64-linux bootstrap-tarballs not reproducible

Previous Next

Full log

Message #44 received at 41669 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>
To: Chris Marusich <cmmarusich <at> gmail.com>
Cc: 41669 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Léo Le Bouter <lle-bout <at> zaclys.net>,
 Efraim Flashner <efraim <at> flashner.co.il>,
 Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer <at> gmail.com>,
 Vincent Legoll <vincent.legoll <at> gmail.com>
Subject: Re: bug#41669: Cross-compiled powerpc64-linux bootstrap-tarballs
 not reproducible
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2020 09:36:09 +0100

Hi Chris,

Chris Marusich <cmmarusich <at> gmail.com> 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’t 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’s a good idea
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’.

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.