From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Oct 21 04:12:23 2020 Received: (at submit) by debbugs.gnu.org; 21 Oct 2020 08:12:23 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:47772 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1kV9EN-0001GN-FG for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 21 Oct 2020 04:12:23 -0400 Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]:58932) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1kV9EM-0001GG-4t for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 21 Oct 2020 04:12:22 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:40646) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kV9EL-0000tx-WA for bug-guix@gnu.org; Wed, 21 Oct 2020 04:12:22 -0400 Received: from mail-wr1-x42d.google.com ([2a00:1450:4864:20::42d]:40846) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kV9EI-0001JD-76 for bug-guix@gnu.org; Wed, 21 Oct 2020 04:12:21 -0400 Received: by mail-wr1-x42d.google.com with SMTP id h5so1912481wrv.7 for ; Wed, 21 Oct 2020 01:12:17 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:mime-version :content-transfer-encoding; bh=cbHYGB51Iroq46kiDZ3vjZ6334M79H340pSei5uUptM=; b=pCSJ1/yZwzRrVe7QvNDAqTlw0CPx5SIt6dRLp1gH4bFt7NtUTAJPSl0wGf3W+hiIdL 6DNXVqHX9/Uqxxq+/bUWuwDORPXPcosgQfZq16sMs9NfAjsJXVPdUupL1wrurGU6Yssi 08kFvbMuZZr25ef3KClmCN2+VrCvVIUT/kkyhknnJnrxiOOcjuRP6Fh6B/sDK+C55/jB sVsxcN2gdGFitBfkqEq+Q1h/WQtLZ/IeeHnInjZlnx1yGLzoUA4E7ZMclNnXs+gZZ5ab o+hnSEIKq65wP/MXPGqwCeCWvm3pJo5lneloK2iGg75fAMlvmMTDYzowlAioqrRwRdXL SX8A== 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:date:message-id:mime-version :content-transfer-encoding; bh=cbHYGB51Iroq46kiDZ3vjZ6334M79H340pSei5uUptM=; b=dmt85YNIWs7vQro2TIpu6uheeqRloIFOTLM1ZKvyuGSy2aIABhKMqjecW5gS6oACbD eHONSOosRKWfI0xKmvXWH36Kf4Q5DK+/qpAgvWYL7j0TVRBi7et0xXsrB0t4C1NcRaAP FSCxwnrhDIUtD4G+kAKib5+5DFsASu7NQOQs8i7sO7M/utKZ19Tv/05GIIga6N5hzneY FmTwBcbeWkyWyyfRYUeGuUoeK93S+rbId308VnjFo3DLE0BTRzSHdn16a0YFc4qxaoWb ozlaUzyGxWvP0qLM4aNBl0Y0yzBcdNkiSEKDWfCROYnhDHYbwc84zc9KIY8qM6v7X32v 3wag== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531vnRHasmwu5cucRewsKPKmkKcNeV4+7zlwgGX/IAl7B8XlsKQD YPCSuvQuvuObhR3z13iDyPo= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxKhxatJIYSLMAbcE/xrTPZxsgvj612RII729F1+NChWekkBrg2iUJ/3Ly2KXYAzQbAtmyDGg== X-Received: by 2002:adf:f584:: with SMTP id f4mr3088891wro.383.1603267936171; Wed, 21 Oct 2020 01:12:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lili ([2a01:e0a:59b:9120:65d2:2476:f637:db1e]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id x18sm2586164wrg.4.2020.10.21.01.12.15 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Wed, 21 Oct 2020 01:12:15 -0700 (PDT) From: zimoun To: bug-guix@gnu.org Subject: SBCL is not reproducible Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2020 10:12:14 +0200 Message-ID: <86o8kw80bl.fsf@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Received-SPF: pass client-ip=2a00:1450:4864:20::42d; envelope-from=zimon.toutoune@gmail.com; helo=mail-wr1-x42d.google.com X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: No matching host in p0f cache. That's all we know. X-Spam_score_int: -20 X-Spam_score: -2.1 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.1 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-Spam-Score: 0.7 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: submit Cc: glv@posteo.net, Pierre Neidhardt X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) Dear, Using Guix 58af4c9, the package =E2=80=99sbcl=E2=80=99 seems not-reproducib= le. The output of =E2=80=9Cguix challenge=E2=80=9D is: --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- differing files: /lib/sbcl/contrib/sb-rt.fasl /lib/sbcl/contrib/uiop.fasl /lib/sbcl/contrib/sb-cover.fasl /lib/sbcl/contrib/sb-capstone.fasl /lib/sbcl/contrib/sb-executable.fasl /lib/sbcl/contrib/sb-bsd-sockets.fasl /lib/sbcl/contrib/sb-simple-streams.fasl /lib/sbcl/contrib/sb-queue.fasl /lib/sbcl/contrib/sb-gmp.fasl /lib/sbcl/contrib/sb-aclrepl.fasl /lib/sbcl/contrib/sb-sprof.fasl /lib/sbcl/contrib/sb-grovel.fasl /lib/sbcl/contrib/sb-posix.fasl /lib/sbcl/contrib/asdf.fasl /lib/sbcl/contrib/sb-mpfr.fasl /lib/sbcl/contrib/sb-cltl2.fasl /lib/sbcl/contrib/sb-concurrency.fasl /lib/sbcl/contrib/sb-md5.fasl /lib/sbcl/contrib/sb-introspect.fasl /lib/sbcl/contrib/sb-rotate-byte.fasl /lib/sbcl/sbcl.core /bin/sbcl /share/sbcl/src/runtime/coreparse.o /share/sbcl/src/runtime/sbcl 1 store items were analyzed: - 0 (0.0%) were identical - 1 (100.0%) differed - 0 (0.0%) were inconclusive --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- which is confirmed by the experimental Data Service webpage: https://data.guix-patches.cbaines.net/revision/4e0498c4d3f5ef03ac5afa4a3e57= 0205c10c28c5/package-derivation-outputs?search_query=3Dsbcl&output_consiste= ncy=3Dnot-matching&system=3Dx86_64-linux&target=3Dnone&after_path=3D&limit_= results=3D&all_results=3Don I do not know if the patches in =E2=80=99staging=E2=80=99 will fix this. Note that this issue does not imply that the build system =E2=80=99asdf-build-system/sbcl=E2=80=99 is or will be not reproducible. H= owever, this issues cuts any Diverse Double Compiling attempt. All the best, simon From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Oct 21 08:42:13 2020 Received: (at 44112) by debbugs.gnu.org; 21 Oct 2020 12:42:13 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:48191 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1kVDRU-0004Hk-PN for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 21 Oct 2020 08:42:12 -0400 Received: from mout01.posteo.de ([185.67.36.65]:45315) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1kVDRS-0004HU-M9 for 44112@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 21 Oct 2020 08:42:11 -0400 Received: from submission (posteo.de [89.146.220.130]) by mout01.posteo.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DA15B16005C for <44112@debbugs.gnu.org>; Wed, 21 Oct 2020 14:42:03 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=posteo.net; s=2017; t=1603284123; bh=276oL5fh8mqzxrflYSv0Fyqq8my1k60IU3yeBUILI9E=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:From; b=Mu0POkjzmLXGeaj+HoCYDAaOFms8L7bXdxTNu3TIQnSyVgs2g/DLE0BqQAJEKhrSA 6YJJZ46vd1vnKgXz0Lw3r1Wp8pKNHiEE5doQyLywb/qOQTvIctXbABGGxEizYTE/Bu 9kyXU8L3wQrDS0W55Sw9VVtKVq1EhpUSwnmKdv/fHzcB+tQcV0Hk+mSu5Wc911CNNv meWA8M6ufGH9PIOwZdCEDNfNhTFniGoq0kj6mVEI1fotpc8PC79rWZAHmTEgGtJUgQ JHhZCEYh1shFNrfcklcgS+Rm1ZjldMeaKW6XaKQH6nzVfCARkhfYrzUN9zhbnGfU9j e5hhUltm5nE5A== Received: from customer (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by submission (posteo.de) with ESMTPSA id 4CGVVx3Vlnz6tml; Wed, 21 Oct 2020 14:42:01 +0200 (CEST) References: <86o8kw80bl.fsf@gmail.com> User-agent: mu4e 1.4.13; emacs 27.1 From: Guillaume Le Vaillant To: zimoun Subject: Re: SBCL is not reproducible In-reply-to: <86o8kw80bl.fsf@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2020 14:41:48 +0200 Message-ID: <87wnzjzr77.fsf@yamatai> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 44112 Cc: 44112@debbugs.gnu.org, Pierre Neidhardt X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -3.3 (---) --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable zimoun skribis: > Using Guix 58af4c9, the package =E2=80=99sbcl=E2=80=99 seems not-reproduc= ible. > > [...] > > I do not know if the patches in =E2=80=99staging=E2=80=99 will fix this. > > Note that this issue does not imply that the build system > =E2=80=99asdf-build-system/sbcl=E2=80=99 is or will be not reproducible. = However, this > issues cuts any Diverse Double Compiling attempt. IIRC, when compiling, SBCL puts the timestamp of the source file in the compiled file. It's not a problem when just doing basic compilation because the source files' timestamps have been set to "1970-01-01". However, some packages generate some source files at build time, usually containing things like data type sizes fetched from system header in order to use C libraries with FFI. The timestamp of a generated file is the current time, therefore the build is not reproducible. IIRC, SBCL itself is built in 2 stages. First its core is compiled using another Common Lisp implementation (currently clisp in Guix), then the complete SBCL is compiled using the core compiled in stage 1. There is probably also an embedded timestamp issue here (coming for clisp, from SBCL, or both) causing the reproducibility issue. The patches currently in the staging branch don't have any effect on the generation of source files or on the format of the compiled files, so they will not help with this issue. Removing this source file timestamp from compiled files would simplify things. Maybe nothing really depends on it and it would be possible... --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iIUEAREKAC0WIQTLxZxm7Ce5cXlAaz5r6CCK3yH+PwUCX5AsjA8cZ2x2QHBvc3Rl by5uZXQACgkQa+ggit8h/j9+WwD+NUWl7DQqk48V2PntLTM52xYfpmiBplWDSMrC LBPgUYoA/1/e0p1lr5TV7cG9BJSmZzTHBubCEHDSIaRRyproDyuo =M569 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=-- From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Oct 21 09:38:06 2020 Received: (at 44112) by debbugs.gnu.org; 21 Oct 2020 13:38:06 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:48276 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1kVEJT-0007nb-H6 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 21 Oct 2020 09:38:06 -0400 Received: from mail-qt1-f177.google.com ([209.85.160.177]:43621) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1kVEJR-0007nP-Sc for 44112@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 21 Oct 2020 09:37:58 -0400 Received: by mail-qt1-f177.google.com with SMTP id e6so2041877qtw.10 for <44112@debbugs.gnu.org>; Wed, 21 Oct 2020 06:37:57 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=46kcHOIprDXCztxU8K5v0bqnB3v+YEx/EPcrb0WQ2GI=; b=sV+8DNjjqFk2rQI9W/etnSC0yCgm1rGNGAYb6o5yDumhQVfPDXXNOakGxoBTiXM+f4 PhGO3mfr6MoIDShZTSqs4T2x4V+Q1R0xywZ4Qf8RUtHbZnJiWUPTzTUDSgoFZKVxuLsq gM4n43JYSvokSEwl/5b4xK3tho+IwMRL4E3opkNyIVuwhPalmzWaM46WTKEus0du3O5M 9e3G7kSEfpkx0K1Lcu+jyH5Rky3203QUf/P/cAv9ZoTTIacCm5DT6dM/djhTvU1iDkCK bdxv8Y359s+O3l4D/2hqyAtGciiu8W4BBfhWfWhSX2G8fDJqJ4ywE8zV/IDnUozXsOrw RcBA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=46kcHOIprDXCztxU8K5v0bqnB3v+YEx/EPcrb0WQ2GI=; b=q66ZHVMpm1k3dqP9xMfgA8GIVK+Rpxn8wXlt1CCnkLPGQ3mkxLDUedXO7xLvLiMuS2 3vOeHI5HYWvLqqou6YjFnCC20w3S8DgUuCI9MMemgNwEGBO3fO0alH/hpyx9/ayiAp4u rL1U+/KouILhKmL9jwUGLqUAXmHUNXvFZVUIHOMHJwyffb453fxrSd6gJB5k4lz11VBu VvsQ+Pf8qeeicMrWuBnDpkEbVZzH/zjnTs1OXMTGY+w6ucpN2dZLjYL09uaXDL6QfXVA HQmsEjUxTa0Dfp5v7iulSVBVvxjDAZTljhXzQwF9oI899g3VWpG5Nqbzgh1I36aaE4An orzg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533mf4GDEVzOoa/XmDmY1drZAGnBk/GEnzrjcKtAjsE5wbrQViP1 d1D9MFosI8ral6yeXjyWK2y0m0kEVk8z1FsXrgjP9YiZ X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxvuWMUBOiq/ZFpGVEvNPicf89p7FEaHCJNHNdDbIsrG73tX+7ss3DqwWY+NNhelK5Frg/IBoJFYlyXSmTHJA4= X-Received: by 2002:aed:3b2a:: with SMTP id p39mr2960022qte.211.1603287472272; Wed, 21 Oct 2020 06:37:52 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <86o8kw80bl.fsf@gmail.com> <87wnzjzr77.fsf@yamatai> In-Reply-To: <87wnzjzr77.fsf@yamatai> From: zimoun Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2020 15:37:41 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: SBCL is not reproducible To: Guillaume Le Vaillant Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 44112 Cc: 44112@debbugs.gnu.org, Pierre Neidhardt X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) Hi, Thank you for the explanations. On Wed, 21 Oct 2020 at 14:42, Guillaume Le Vaillant wrote: > However, some packages generate some source files at build time, usually > containing things like data type sizes fetched from system header in > order to use C libraries with FFI. The timestamp of a generated file > is the current time, therefore the build is not reproducible. This is an issue. Do you think it is affordable to fix these timestamps to 1970-01-01? > IIRC, SBCL itself is built in 2 stages. First its core is compiled > using another Common Lisp implementation (currently clisp in Guix), then > the complete SBCL is compiled using the core compiled in stage 1. There > is probably also an embedded timestamp issue here (coming for clisp, > from SBCL, or both) causing the reproducibility issue. Yes. But I have replaced this "clisp" by ECL or by SBCL itself. Still unreproducible. Out-of-scope with this bug report, my aim is to have a fixed point: - first compile SBCL with CLISP (using the 2 stages you describe): produce SBCL-A - second recompile SBCL with the previous SBCL-A (again using the 2 stages): produce SBCL-B - third recompile SBCL with the previous SBCL-B (again using the 2 stages): produces SBCL-C The binary SBCL-A is not deterministic probably because of CLISP (and CLISP should be fixed but that's another story :-)). However, SBCL-B and SBCL-C must be deterministic. And ideally bit-to-bit identical but that's another story. :-) And they are not; from my experiments at least. Even, you could do the same procedure replacing CLISP by ECL, producing SBCL-{A,B,C}-bis. Then SBCL-C and SBCL-C-bis should be bit-to-bit identical. > Removing this source file timestamp from compiled files would simplify > things. Maybe nothing really depends on it and it would be possible... Thanks for the explanation. All the best, simon From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Oct 21 09:43:44 2020 Received: (at 44112) by debbugs.gnu.org; 21 Oct 2020 13:43:44 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:48280 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1kVEP2-0007wB-FA for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 21 Oct 2020 09:43:44 -0400 Received: from mail-qk1-f170.google.com ([209.85.222.170]:33158) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1kVEOz-0007vy-Vu for 44112@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 21 Oct 2020 09:43:42 -0400 Received: by mail-qk1-f170.google.com with SMTP id v200so2499706qka.0 for <44112@debbugs.gnu.org>; Wed, 21 Oct 2020 06:43:41 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Ia2GeFzWFh0hWTkQOFeOT/2ELIFkCQdCLk4T6Hp2Gak=; b=RwaKDg+nftv57JcftUnoVx+QoE2eRvR9qk3GINwJkkiz/5f1ns1m7fqCOdzx+P8reT s44SqJRqujsqApr7R8xD2WUcP2YZK3rkagBvnXnNQLkrgPqTzLNXpQGR+Xch/ZdRBzaF kDupGIVRoOuC/ygiWnb60Iih3IfLeAcdHjkNZHG8i0hzCITqHv09yItE60SaGY02zJev y3PoOrQ5rS1syZmYIyxL8lWAII29xyRbO4BRyghT3q8FWNzxM04dni3SKJwcKU30Ctuh 8Bzk2z9Hw8XNAC3APYANbCrMTsdDk3g10t4/ISQi3G+mKCZG0RsLkGDcmX6LamZSVxjd 7FeA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Ia2GeFzWFh0hWTkQOFeOT/2ELIFkCQdCLk4T6Hp2Gak=; b=d5Wjhto249VdvkeLMYh2xnYv6QkMR44jbw3zFylxgFtUbA/d9lwzrkcP7VW/NvWTS7 IxAbu3NE5mX6V5PWa9MqL4XcrHZwfKOGYju/q6qX3Xb4im+oub6B6Ufbehezw5xdA+ma T+M6XH9OTOEF0PvQiu4zMhMsl5Fy6Aqf9Uc9wgSXJ7Ao4y00kJQpo1EM6g0R7jWVGzDn 3Ss1weY6wrnPjRqV3TIrUx1Ne4P/lvcX6UR+2azEEpjCYXsktToUbGBM5kFdj0QccNaj 4CNFDXllRH0g0MLYau5MfSnWDabxz0I0Nv8ohOFZShu6Svuh3hGo0v862KAG17p64WhS QWqw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531xUxGECZc0NA9EXtjMT40O45qZlhAy9T6eMJHJOnR4bXp7TlzF ztZpvpJX8k5K8aG/WTidXqKPu/7HyyfkEC1mHCo= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzsvhvseEli5zBzJ+hsVE2sl/F1OrzQbwqPrs/G0Lj3700BxIhDWza2wkyrkXsyBfBzxFoLRPNIbaQPIEdnSCk= X-Received: by 2002:a37:9a89:: with SMTP id c131mr3113767qke.80.1603287816418; Wed, 21 Oct 2020 06:43:36 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <86o8kw80bl.fsf@gmail.com> <87wnzjzr77.fsf@yamatai> In-Reply-To: From: zimoun Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2020 15:43:24 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: bug#44112: SBCL is not reproducible To: Guillaume Le Vaillant Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 44112 Cc: 44112@debbugs.gnu.org, Pierre Neidhardt X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) On Wed, 21 Oct 2020 at 15:39, zimoun wrote: > > IIRC, SBCL itself is built in 2 stages. First its core is compiled > > using another Common Lisp implementation (currently clisp in Guix), then > > the complete SBCL is compiled using the core compiled in stage 1. There > > is probably also an embedded timestamp issue here (coming for clisp, > > from SBCL, or both) causing the reproducibility issue. In addition, GCC is also involved in the party. And I have also replaced it by Clang with the same effect. Cheers, simon From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Oct 21 10:32:16 2020 Received: (at 44112) by debbugs.gnu.org; 21 Oct 2020 14:32:17 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:50167 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1kVFA0-00035h-NK for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 21 Oct 2020 10:32:16 -0400 Received: from relay2-d.mail.gandi.net ([217.70.183.194]:50789) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1kVF9y-0002zV-Hw for 44112@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 21 Oct 2020 10:32:15 -0400 X-Originating-IP: 90.92.160.122 Received: from mimimi (lfbn-idf2-1-1094-122.w90-92.abo.wanadoo.fr [90.92.160.122]) (Authenticated sender: mail@ambrevar.xyz) by relay2-d.mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6A57340009; Wed, 21 Oct 2020 14:32:07 +0000 (UTC) From: Pierre Neidhardt To: zimoun , Guillaume Le Vaillant Subject: Re: bug#44112: SBCL is not reproducible In-Reply-To: References: <86o8kw80bl.fsf@gmail.com> <87wnzjzr77.fsf@yamatai> Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2020 16:32:06 +0200 Message-ID: <87y2jzzm3d.fsf@ambrevar.xyz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Spam-Score: 2.5 (++) X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "debbugs.gnu.org", has NOT identified this incoming email as spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: zimoun writes: > In addition, GCC is also involved in the party. And I have also > replaced it by Clang with the same effect. Where? Content analysis details: (2.5 points, 10.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 0.0 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3 RBL: Good reputation (+3) [217.70.183.194 listed in wl.mailspike.net] -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 2.0 PDS_OTHER_BAD_TLD Untrustworthy TLDs [URI: ambrevar.xyz (xyz)] 0.0 SPF_HELO_NONE SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record 0.0 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL Mailspike good senders 0.5 FROM_SUSPICIOUS_NTLD From abused NTLD X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 44112 Cc: 44112@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: 2.5 (++) X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "debbugs.gnu.org", has NOT identified this incoming email as spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: zimoun writes: > In addition, GCC is also involved in the party. And I have also > replaced it by Clang with the same effect. Where? Content analysis details: (2.5 points, 10.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 0.0 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3 RBL: Good reputation (+3) [217.70.183.194 listed in wl.mailspike.net] -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 2.0 PDS_OTHER_BAD_TLD Untrustworthy TLDs [URI: ambrevar.xyz (xyz)] 0.0 SPF_HELO_NONE SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record 0.0 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL Mailspike good senders 0.5 FROM_SUSPICIOUS_NTLD From abused NTLD -1.0 MAILING_LIST_MULTI Multiple indicators imply a widely-seen list manager 1.0 BULK_RE_SUSP_NTLD Precedence bulk and RE: from a suspicious TLD --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable zimoun writes: > In addition, GCC is also involved in the party. And I have also > replaced it by Clang with the same effect. Where? =2D-=20 Pierre Neidhardt https://ambrevar.xyz/ --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQFGBAEBCAAwFiEEUPM+LlsMPZAEJKvom9z0l6S7zH8FAl+QRmcSHG1haWxAYW1i cmV2YXIueHl6AAoJEJvc9Jeku8x/iUEH/j0PGRqFHvUFRCVpmoyk/pZ+NOnBsLqE 7hbPN9ab3bed4PWF/oiEOAsX7bX2BMnYr0nFIMEreRtgqGsOq8R4xet7ERNr2pqr er2RHfQBdig/VuGpVFxHO6wd1UlRU+MTS/ma8rN7imzEF5CriYImmExXs7RYV9EX 4g2YDL4+7ksdgz2CGHh1bu8trs/PvJuN4p+V4/s512hxqJ8k08shTK8iq0NEivh8 bPUgB4zCVICt+g2x2XSASb4rifGOTArOGBsECiolYsydtWmgyYW+DN0KMhj8QKsn p+rmooTyQDYt/BsMYXd5q/WVFgpsM37N0SnHzqO6dmX3BYPFeEvMisc= =Wdr8 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=-- From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Oct 21 10:32:37 2020 Received: (at 44112) by debbugs.gnu.org; 21 Oct 2020 14:32:37 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:50170 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1kVFAK-0003J7-UV for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 21 Oct 2020 10:32:37 -0400 Received: from relay4-d.mail.gandi.net ([217.70.183.196]:47957) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1kVFAJ-0003ED-0G for 44112@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 21 Oct 2020 10:32:35 -0400 X-Originating-IP: 90.92.160.122 Received: from mimimi (lfbn-idf2-1-1094-122.w90-92.abo.wanadoo.fr [90.92.160.122]) (Authenticated sender: mail@ambrevar.xyz) by relay4-d.mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 384B2E0014; Wed, 21 Oct 2020 14:32:26 +0000 (UTC) From: Pierre Neidhardt To: Guillaume Le Vaillant , zimoun Subject: Re: SBCL is not reproducible In-Reply-To: <87wnzjzr77.fsf@yamatai> References: <86o8kw80bl.fsf@gmail.com> <87wnzjzr77.fsf@yamatai> Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2020 16:32:26 +0200 Message-ID: <87v9f3zm2t.fsf@ambrevar.xyz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Spam-Score: 2.5 (++) X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "debbugs.gnu.org", has NOT identified this incoming email as spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: Guillaume Le Vaillant writes: > IIRC, SBCL itself is built in 2 stages. First its core is compiled > using another Common Lisp implementation (currently clisp in Guix), then > the complete SBCL is compiled using the core compiled [...] Content analysis details: (2.5 points, 10.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 0.0 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3 RBL: Good reputation (+3) [217.70.183.196 listed in wl.mailspike.net] -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 2.0 PDS_OTHER_BAD_TLD Untrustworthy TLDs [URI: ambrevar.xyz (xyz)] 0.0 SPF_HELO_NONE SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record 0.0 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL Mailspike good senders 0.5 FROM_SUSPICIOUS_NTLD From abused NTLD X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 44112 Cc: 44112@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: 2.5 (++) X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "debbugs.gnu.org", has NOT identified this incoming email as spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: Guillaume Le Vaillant writes: > IIRC, SBCL itself is built in 2 stages. First its core is compiled > using another Common Lisp implementation (currently clisp in Guix), then > the complete SBCL is compiled using the core compiled [...] Content analysis details: (2.5 points, 10.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 0.0 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3 RBL: Good reputation (+3) [217.70.183.196 listed in wl.mailspike.net] -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 2.0 PDS_OTHER_BAD_TLD Untrustworthy TLDs [URI: ambrevar.xyz (xyz)] 0.0 SPF_HELO_NONE SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record 0.0 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL Mailspike good senders 0.5 FROM_SUSPICIOUS_NTLD From abused NTLD -1.0 MAILING_LIST_MULTI Multiple indicators imply a widely-seen list manager 1.0 BULK_RE_SUSP_NTLD Precedence bulk and RE: from a suspicious TLD --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Guillaume Le Vaillant writes: > IIRC, SBCL itself is built in 2 stages. First its core is compiled > using another Common Lisp implementation (currently clisp in Guix), then > the complete SBCL is compiled using the core compiled in stage 1. Yes, this is correct. =2D-=20 Pierre Neidhardt https://ambrevar.xyz/ --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQFGBAEBCAAwFiEEUPM+LlsMPZAEJKvom9z0l6S7zH8FAl+QRnoSHG1haWxAYW1i cmV2YXIueHl6AAoJEJvc9Jeku8x/QpAH/jDzZbTf5c7Q9zoLt1O/TGkZkDfIXxqV g/mM32PO9o1w9oSepAHxSC3uubcXi+kx7FhIdOhHKKFOtARx+mqTElH5qq1N3OGs AaKDEuy6lPY/kijbEHsy1FHZw5Swvww6Vf0qwHkp8CFFGdr9jEh57LMf1TQ1T+hc pWbUJ9yAuVhNUhX0Fa82cqiah0dB9QWO0/NXPM9VZU5asvs1Yt1DzreeAVpFFb/e 6OZYfq/q3nlBNYyORupj1aN+Z4+aUr4kr6L9CvmKb+Yy/cJJd5fUIsjgt09QcWem JZrQ/3I6/MUhJgMxY7xr2L/IIZ3VFm6C2wrcg5DReMOofb/MxJ71DGM= =0cXn -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=-- From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Oct 21 11:13:35 2020 Received: (at 44112) by debbugs.gnu.org; 21 Oct 2020 15:13:35 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:50238 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1kVFnz-0004NO-6B for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 21 Oct 2020 11:13:35 -0400 Received: from mail-qk1-f180.google.com ([209.85.222.180]:44684) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1kVFnx-0004N9-Pk for 44112@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 21 Oct 2020 11:13:34 -0400 Received: by mail-qk1-f180.google.com with SMTP id s14so2754917qkg.11 for <44112@debbugs.gnu.org>; Wed, 21 Oct 2020 08:13:33 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Q4MBZrslLZ+Gt3PouScFp+jWU9Mwy8MnjCah3g1yZXg=; b=lfth5cDzwHsmoms9ohMeQH6pyVbRi61VuPv4F7gAHLYxfCcflzB+/DjtjlnI4ro1fo 8rljOM0RYRAKNm8uNME4VjFYtPe6qeDTBtJbK+/v2GpRkx8L/O8VffpUPxP+Lx5NsBtK Cun0sA0wyVmrCe+VRpfuEyK1ScHSamnfbheUwnY0X7oDytqKZmSjd2iaUKtNSb6/wEiy A5zJkdF38hMOjUnUaWedZ3r5+A/0jm/3/IXyeWkfi3tBbq/6OhXcCPNoQ113v5as9Zu8 B6xpQwl7fzyWkdK5xDH4+qwyrfZctY8jSYDtOVN1LnVw9DSpfhxME6TCS8O0ENNnezVR Q13g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Q4MBZrslLZ+Gt3PouScFp+jWU9Mwy8MnjCah3g1yZXg=; b=e98ciZl8bI2yV9p3U4pMuUYFj9X/0slJUOM+59qT36TYwxhIVd3Wukbhiyo6fvpNkv iqRPrHp/rcFiMWKW4/oeCOhjk/p53c3aEqnHqjSw8yxaXbVDQ5eV1phAYqqKc+oQxYgR wkpDKVN5zTQ+JTGTGTXUlr0ZHRt6A0VNPjgRHcbxyYS8LTRDzyyUyOVDriCRbQ2DlpU7 LDnBrnF4n1htFdrGKZZmIoKzrhQO7Jpyz0nrXvKOzbEPzZRP4IuvtuCjhrGijE8K5oHI fJuXphZd8QmzKUarIqhyEMaNRRkzviBBAouxp+Qy8QnlQdz3YxXfdOj/kxqFc3stvKqo B2nQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532KWqt13yDXt1SgM6gwUi9+RW8xtsaxJwIS569S7xg8OIuV0Lm7 7HW+wPC4tLf/5fUqvlWjhXwXroGbtjBTvWnf2u0= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxT632T5nnftxkN9HnAZSIkw9q1d5clpNJjmiEqPBzQH1Wbdx+RvdKbguAJ3e2P2x4xIa+LSIRbBd94pzANujM= X-Received: by 2002:a37:ac11:: with SMTP id e17mr3658482qkm.232.1603293208216; Wed, 21 Oct 2020 08:13:28 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <86o8kw80bl.fsf@gmail.com> <87wnzjzr77.fsf@yamatai> <87y2jzzm3d.fsf@ambrevar.xyz> In-Reply-To: <87y2jzzm3d.fsf@ambrevar.xyz> From: zimoun Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2020 17:13:17 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: bug#44112: SBCL is not reproducible To: Pierre Neidhardt Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Spam-Score: 2.0 (++) X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "debbugs.gnu.org", has NOT identified this incoming email as spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: On Wed, 21 Oct 2020 at 16:32, Pierre Neidhardt wrote: > > In addition, GCC is also involved in the party. And I have also > > replaced it by Clang with the same effect. > > Where? --88--- (define-module (ddc-sbcl) #:use-module (guix packages) #:use-module (guix utils) #:use-module ((guix build utils) #:select (modify-pha [...] Content analysis details: (2.0 points, 10.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (zimon.toutoune[at]gmail.com) 2.0 PDS_OTHER_BAD_TLD Untrustworthy TLDs [URI: ambrevar.xyz (xyz)] 0.0 SPF_HELO_NONE SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record -0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/, no trust [209.85.222.180 listed in list.dnswl.org] -0.0 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2 RBL: Average reputation (+2) [209.85.222.180 listed in wl.mailspike.net] X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 44112 Cc: Guillaume Le Vaillant , 44112@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: 1.0 (+) On Wed, 21 Oct 2020 at 16:32, Pierre Neidhardt wrote: > > In addition, GCC is also involved in the party. And I have also > > replaced it by Clang with the same effect. > > Where? --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- (define-module (ddc-sbcl) #:use-module (guix packages) #:use-module (guix utils) #:use-module ((guix build utils) #:select (modify-phases)) #:use-module (srfi srfi-1) #:use-module (ice-9 match) #:use-module (gnu packages lisp) #:use-module (gnu packages commencement) #:use-module (gnu packages llvm)) (define (make-sbcl name string-compil compil cc) (package (inherit sbcl) (name name) (arguments (substitute-keyword-arguments (package-arguments sbcl) ((#:phases phases) `(modify-phases ,phases (replace 'build (lambda* (#:key outputs #:allow-other-keys) (setenv "CC" ,cc) (invoke "sh" "make.sh" ,string-compil (string-append "--prefix=" (assoc-ref outputs "out")) "--dynamic-space-size=2Gb" "--with-sb-core-compression" "--with-sb-xref-for-internals"))))))) (native-inputs `(,@(alist-delete "clisp" (package-native-inputs sbcl)) ("compil" ,compil))))) (define-public sbcl-A (package-with-c-toolchain (make-sbcl "sbcl-A" "clisp" clisp "gcc") `(("gcc" ,gcc-toolchain)))) ;fail with 6 (define-public sbcl-B (package-with-c-toolchain (make-sbcl "sbcl-B" "ecl" ecl "clang") `(("clang" ,clang-toolchain)))) (define-public sbcl-AA (package-with-c-toolchain (make-sbcl "sbcl-AA" "sbcl" sbcl-A "gcc") `(("gcc" ,gcc-toolchain)))) (define-public sbcl-BB (package-with-c-toolchain (make-sbcl "sbcl-BB" "sbcl" sbcl-B "clang") `(("clang" ,clang-toolchain)))) (define-public sbcl-CC (package-with-c-toolchain (make-sbcl "sbcl-CC" "sbcl" sbcl-A "clang") `(("clang" ,clang-toolchain)))) (define-public sbcl-DD (package-with-c-toolchain (make-sbcl "sbcl-DD" "sbcl" sbcl-B "gcc") `(("gcc" ,gcc-toolchain)))) --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Oct 21 12:46:00 2020 Received: (at 44112) by debbugs.gnu.org; 21 Oct 2020 16:46:00 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:50364 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1kVHFQ-0006ni-3U for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 21 Oct 2020 12:46:00 -0400 Received: from mout02.posteo.de ([185.67.36.66]:41171) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1kVHFN-0006nS-Je for 44112@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 21 Oct 2020 12:45:58 -0400 Received: from submission (posteo.de [89.146.220.130]) by mout02.posteo.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1BB732400FC for <44112@debbugs.gnu.org>; Wed, 21 Oct 2020 18:45:51 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=posteo.net; s=2017; t=1603298751; bh=4JUARpD9Q+AeFjoX/qdZMUUgl+A7JK9nr4RQY+0T8AQ=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:From; b=jZtb9hl4I3E0MI15SLLOw/8Qji044aoB/TO2ck6ZYDPSIOStuXw2FHqPaYn1zaHN2 5rpgMoi+76YMy0bzhecf+9Irvv/xoNDZ98fmb0mC8lQ+JsfBXVBYRWcWDuoW+uOR/b EI4fpVK5KPkjytZ2zSUbR4stM99fEmg7NZxPuw4xVA3U1WjSiABx53Nic1TNpQvvZS GZ0aliXCFV/uwDhbuJ1zLeFPI1cemOOWxs0faVh7pqTsc4dsymmFYqnY2DqCu2w6MH GKnY+F6dDPAO2GCRESeZs1RJrvN0+KIpwndnLtSWzgaief4RWgN0yJQsoiME9A7FFe hcwo+Po/y6YWw== Received: from customer (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by submission (posteo.de) with ESMTPSA id 4CGbwD0Y1xz6tn1; Wed, 21 Oct 2020 18:45:47 +0200 (CEST) References: <86o8kw80bl.fsf@gmail.com> <87wnzjzr77.fsf@yamatai> <87y2jzzm3d.fsf@ambrevar.xyz> User-agent: mu4e 1.4.13; emacs 27.1 From: Guillaume Le Vaillant To: zimoun Subject: Re: bug#44112: SBCL is not reproducible In-reply-to: Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2020 18:45:43 +0200 Message-ID: <87r1przfwo.fsf@yamatai> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 44112 Cc: 44112@debbugs.gnu.org, Pierre Neidhardt X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -3.3 (---) --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain zimoun skribis: >> Removing this source file timestamp from compiled files would simplify >> things. Maybe nothing really depends on it and it would be possible... > >Thanks for the explanation. A developer of SBCL agrees that the timestamp should be removed [1], but currently Slime has a function depending on it. I asked if this could be fixed [2]. We'll see... [1] https://sourceforge.net/p/sbcl/mailman/message/37133640/ [2] https://github.com/slime/slime/issues/583 --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iIUEAREKAC0WIQTLxZxm7Ce5cXlAaz5r6CCK3yH+PwUCX5Bltw8cZ2x2QHBvc3Rl by5uZXQACgkQa+ggit8h/j/HgAD/UNRHvLALDFFdm71pw9wUxnTaLnrAzy//ifOO O+ZuRroA/1U01XRKLlVACRVGA+xqEj0LDgY9iED5rJx0+hIZTVA4 =Rmx0 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=-- From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Oct 21 12:55:49 2020 Received: (at 44112) by debbugs.gnu.org; 21 Oct 2020 16:55:49 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:50373 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1kVHOv-00074Z-DJ for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 21 Oct 2020 12:55:49 -0400 Received: from relay3-d.mail.gandi.net ([217.70.183.195]:50887) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1kVHOt-00074L-LT for 44112@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 21 Oct 2020 12:55:48 -0400 X-Originating-IP: 90.92.160.122 Received: from bababa (lfbn-idf2-1-1094-122.w90-92.abo.wanadoo.fr [90.92.160.122]) (Authenticated sender: mail@ambrevar.xyz) by relay3-d.mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id ADEDB60005; Wed, 21 Oct 2020 16:55:40 +0000 (UTC) From: Pierre Neidhardt To: Guillaume Le Vaillant , zimoun Subject: Re: bug#44112: SBCL is not reproducible In-Reply-To: <87r1przfwo.fsf@yamatai> References: <86o8kw80bl.fsf@gmail.com> <87wnzjzr77.fsf@yamatai> <87y2jzzm3d.fsf@ambrevar.xyz> <87r1przfwo.fsf@yamatai> Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2020 18:55:40 +0200 Message-ID: <87imb334dv.fsf@ambrevar.xyz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Spam-Score: 2.5 (++) X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "debbugs.gnu.org", has NOT identified this incoming email as spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: Guillaume Le Vaillant writes: > A developer of SBCL agrees that the timestamp should be removed [1], but > currently Slime has a function depending on it. I asked if this could > be fixed [2]. We'll see... > > [1] https://sourcefo [...] Content analysis details: (2.5 points, 10.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 0.0 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3 RBL: Good reputation (+3) [217.70.183.195 listed in wl.mailspike.net] -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 2.0 PDS_OTHER_BAD_TLD Untrustworthy TLDs [URI: ambrevar.xyz (xyz)] 0.0 SPF_HELO_NONE SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record 0.0 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL Mailspike good senders 0.5 FROM_SUSPICIOUS_NTLD From abused NTLD X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 44112 Cc: 44112@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: 2.5 (++) X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "debbugs.gnu.org", has NOT identified this incoming email as spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: Guillaume Le Vaillant writes: > A developer of SBCL agrees that the timestamp should be removed [1], but > currently Slime has a function depending on it. I asked if this could > be fixed [2]. We'll see... > > [1] https://sourcefo [...] Content analysis details: (2.5 points, 10.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 0.0 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3 RBL: Good reputation (+3) [217.70.183.195 listed in wl.mailspike.net] -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 2.0 PDS_OTHER_BAD_TLD Untrustworthy TLDs [URI: ambrevar.xyz (xyz)] 0.0 SPF_HELO_NONE SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record 0.0 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL Mailspike good senders 0.5 FROM_SUSPICIOUS_NTLD From abused NTLD -1.0 MAILING_LIST_MULTI Multiple indicators imply a widely-seen list manager 1.0 BULK_RE_SUSP_NTLD Precedence bulk and RE: from a suspicious TLD --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Guillaume Le Vaillant writes: > A developer of SBCL agrees that the timestamp should be removed [1], but > currently Slime has a function depending on it. I asked if this could > be fixed [2]. We'll see... > > [1] https://sourceforge.net/p/sbcl/mailman/message/37133640/ > [2] https://github.com/slime/slime/issues/583 Thank you so much for asking! =2D-=20 Pierre Neidhardt https://ambrevar.xyz/ --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQFGBAEBCAAwFiEEUPM+LlsMPZAEJKvom9z0l6S7zH8FAl+QaAwSHG1haWxAYW1i cmV2YXIueHl6AAoJEJvc9Jeku8x/31wH/3LA595p9lpR88NvU9D6a9sC3Xkp2FWq n8QP+ZV/OLJ5CYR5yveGhgegs73S65IYpTxC1ZezowGkZzfbU6mHnBO2FJV6Wl8E R8WJaAzxhxRjNy1TL46tViBY5PQ6QniyIw3lyAwI38VAoch9z4ykEKRIh7ex5/qK /iKcv0rSNNxCqLDFgob//t+aPY4E4NaYpumtCOpx4bUQp0jECyVuikU1QfkqmQBm VQ/45m/s5B26G+Xs6pYYQ/zTub3/mxcEszi3+ttnCfCsu0Q7r1vDQe9Ge1hE/riH LIZM1JRag3iyRrgR7mh5g251EiWgyLG6usCKmCjWcNkj8On2yjYiwVI= =MonO -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=-- From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Thu Oct 22 07:19:27 2020 Received: (at 44112) by debbugs.gnu.org; 22 Oct 2020 11:19:27 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:51550 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1kVYcx-0002JD-4a for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 22 Oct 2020 07:19:27 -0400 Received: from mail-qv1-f68.google.com ([209.85.219.68]:36225) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1kVYcv-0002Iy-Gp for 44112@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 22 Oct 2020 07:19:26 -0400 Received: by mail-qv1-f68.google.com with SMTP id ev17so629282qvb.3 for <44112@debbugs.gnu.org>; Thu, 22 Oct 2020 04:19:25 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=g26RmbXQlZlSYFB0KMaKnp3sF54aWf7MYuTp9nCimBk=; b=S8YW2GfMAbGOfzP1ZfZMjLiJQ+8HmGVZycNeKychYYZC9zIdzpP/GFlpM/B8XVbHDr Rhap0AGO1E2ZaKMvP2dMHbRjQeTDdIn1ijAwkfdGysKFhrw8brCXM5rYB/KtH0P579eP FzBxcfTblb/9GEAmGTZ/E+wDm/ZvTvq6r/JHPoe08QoXw/ID3f50u/wlB8fKoJzndtx/ zxRfjoynXg10UcRI1atYHVrJfDno87DCUsdoV/qlmYAMrW1BGSf9ubsNNCz37m9tt15F A/Uz3T7LKufClpQCaIdhg3ANlCWST4aDgR3i6VafGIaao0iWCSVcHTq3iy6rEu6BEepn 9+QQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=g26RmbXQlZlSYFB0KMaKnp3sF54aWf7MYuTp9nCimBk=; b=hfZH+PWgihy4UXfaLn1aVa/AeNjyTdIzPnKo3MisM7UdrSBRwK5f2ytbF1m6vbh/y3 nO3qIsiXLafBXPxD42rmBosRVZHqglf5nJ9Le0Hv24KtWCVtiytQU0t/mjUsNs6hYQOl Wsv9YLqg0F8liX+1uxHSIgKkjWeWAI2NTEp8PRAu4dwaSM8BDdcX7v5MEfQtMaygJTN6 8bARBvUMNalhzuWCfNTmKQgUXx68I/HUbk8JQoIHxZh7syYqVErrHCs3dTnAFMAhvE8J vrBknkdXwJPeNkprK/2eD5Zrfz+X4Hs53Es1k2WtjPnPGlIYoY+B+i3y7l0Ep5ODBGbq Gg3w== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5336yZxa8U3+ac3JDl35/WUN8fDyIcrv1mL/Zn9hZkj9NeTWRqWx v+HqhhJ5ERQtbLExiUn0AICdPA/PE+KjYh0Cj8w= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzp5UDPalAR+phHeE/1T2d/CL4127yrQdH0ZeBXtpUrV9V7ezL+N27ddUXbRDNNCcaTZRHfOMtBlL7V3QX1hMw= X-Received: by 2002:ad4:45ec:: with SMTP id q12mr1677095qvu.33.1603365559906; Thu, 22 Oct 2020 04:19:19 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <86o8kw80bl.fsf@gmail.com> <87wnzjzr77.fsf@yamatai> <87y2jzzm3d.fsf@ambrevar.xyz> <87r1przfwo.fsf@yamatai> In-Reply-To: <87r1przfwo.fsf@yamatai> From: zimoun Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2020 13:19:08 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: bug#44112: SBCL is not reproducible To: Guillaume Le Vaillant Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 44112 Cc: 44112@debbugs.gnu.org, Pierre Neidhardt X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) Hi Guillaume, Thank you for asking upstream. On Wed, 21 Oct 2020 at 18:45, Guillaume Le Vaillant wrote: > A developer of SBCL agrees that the timestamp should be removed [1], but > currently Slime has a function depending on it. I asked if this could > be fixed [2]. We'll see... > > [1] https://sourceforge.net/p/sbcl/mailman/message/37133640/ Ouch! Hard to read when not subscribed. :-) > [2] https://github.com/slime/slime/issues/583 If upstream does not want to patch, do you think it is doable to patch SLIME and maintain the patch with the Guix package? Thanks, simon From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Thu Oct 22 08:14:04 2020 Received: (at 44112) by debbugs.gnu.org; 22 Oct 2020 12:14:05 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:51652 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1kVZTo-0001dL-K9 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 22 Oct 2020 08:14:04 -0400 Received: from relay3-d.mail.gandi.net ([217.70.183.195]:46741) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1kVZTm-0001ca-JD for 44112@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 22 Oct 2020 08:14:03 -0400 X-Originating-IP: 90.92.160.122 Received: from mimimi (lfbn-idf2-1-1094-122.w90-92.abo.wanadoo.fr [90.92.160.122]) (Authenticated sender: mail@ambrevar.xyz) by relay3-d.mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 208EE60003; Thu, 22 Oct 2020 12:13:54 +0000 (UTC) From: Pierre Neidhardt To: zimoun , Guillaume Le Vaillant Subject: Re: bug#44112: SBCL is not reproducible In-Reply-To: References: <86o8kw80bl.fsf@gmail.com> <87wnzjzr77.fsf@yamatai> <87y2jzzm3d.fsf@ambrevar.xyz> <87r1przfwo.fsf@yamatai> Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2020 14:13:49 +0200 Message-ID: <87k0vi4fwi.fsf@ambrevar.xyz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Spam-Score: 2.5 (++) X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "debbugs.gnu.org", has NOT identified this incoming email as spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: zimoun writes: > If upstream does not want to patch, do you think it is doable to patch > SLIME and maintain the patch with the Guix package? Accepted or not, we also need to ping the SLY maintainer to apply the same change. (SLY is a fork of SLIME.) Content analysis details: (2.5 points, 10.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 0.0 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3 RBL: Good reputation (+3) [217.70.183.195 listed in wl.mailspike.net] 2.0 PDS_OTHER_BAD_TLD Untrustworthy TLDs [URI: ambrevar.xyz (xyz)] 0.0 SPF_HELO_NONE SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 0.5 FROM_SUSPICIOUS_NTLD From abused NTLD 0.0 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL Mailspike good senders X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 44112 Cc: 44112@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: 2.5 (++) X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "debbugs.gnu.org", has NOT identified this incoming email as spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: zimoun writes: > If upstream does not want to patch, do you think it is doable to patch > SLIME and maintain the patch with the Guix package? Accepted or not, we also need to ping the SLY maintainer to apply the same change. (SLY is a fork of SLIME.) Content analysis details: (2.5 points, 10.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 0.0 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3 RBL: Good reputation (+3) [217.70.183.195 listed in wl.mailspike.net] 2.0 PDS_OTHER_BAD_TLD Untrustworthy TLDs [URI: ambrevar.xyz (xyz)] 0.0 SPF_HELO_NONE SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 0.5 FROM_SUSPICIOUS_NTLD From abused NTLD -1.0 MAILING_LIST_MULTI Multiple indicators imply a widely-seen list manager 0.0 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL Mailspike good senders 1.0 BULK_RE_SUSP_NTLD Precedence bulk and RE: from a suspicious TLD --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable zimoun writes: > If upstream does not want to patch, do you think it is doable to patch > SLIME and maintain the patch with the Guix package? Accepted or not, we also need to ping the SLY maintainer to apply the same change. (SLY is a fork of SLIME.) =2D-=20 Pierre Neidhardt https://ambrevar.xyz/ --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQFGBAEBCAAwFiEEUPM+LlsMPZAEJKvom9z0l6S7zH8FAl+Rd30SHG1haWxAYW1i cmV2YXIueHl6AAoJEJvc9Jeku8x/NDUH/AomtzDBS811zh0aF3ZCCrLBabxP5ifq pJh0aZ9SeiUqEs/YdN5wkItFnMksI27lf7LXAzK7bh1z+oacE/lraViEc3tP5GMg 8DIBdzxYOaSVd5cpbP0rocReOAl5pXyJBC7k33/8Kg9PVelY10ZGa03QsnEQb7xM 6YdAXYP1hAaUvOc+gNAyJIfP8oRKxP5Iy2gUspyNInObfA5rMHAC5TtavIDJV3kU i562EOWsS3OBTtzTg7oKwdEj4/9muL/J5BfGlnxPT5yLQNZ3DRnWW3QCLVS+2c3w M81rmXAa3qd8y5n4cOmvZ0iJ9t3KJ7/sLFFSHWANj6i71CU9i3xZxKo= =lOkM -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=-- From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Tue Jan 19 11:57:26 2021 Received: (at 44112) by debbugs.gnu.org; 19 Jan 2021 16:57:26 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:51440 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1l1uJq-0000mZ-0D for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 19 Jan 2021 11:57:26 -0500 Received: from mail-wr1-f46.google.com ([209.85.221.46]:34595) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1l1uJn-0000mI-48 for 44112@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 19 Jan 2021 11:57:24 -0500 Received: by mail-wr1-f46.google.com with SMTP id g10so2049493wrx.1 for <44112@debbugs.gnu.org>; Tue, 19 Jan 2021 08:57:23 -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:content-transfer-encoding; bh=ldwQ2zapLyeHAzw8uFijTAn9ly8AM5u1WOyRyjaP3Zk=; b=oXlqF+Q8XrL2+ljeYhvr/FqkxYeGUkBItdjyrY9io5jkM0kjRJm5g20BADrnyha8H2 r9Kgz19EiGP8tIdggRupBBxA4/NR6MU/EeMReGxtDsLoAxm3dtm0IkYpIKDOlWE4y16P iYGefoerhQ173zrOXyNU8ZOJbdpMOhVlOH7pQ2Sz06wG0gY+Yz3ojzTJoZSqGulMee2a IHsypakXaZUgjFgBKA2qt52kmox931AebhCzkJizy13+jwhKzdkragSgy1QRjh5SMCg/ 9Pa1MmNaCZXC2PwCiWKUwEgAoJyQhkr7McxoXKtn/wVtpBEWHz7neKrG5sJx+XvGeD8m ES0Q== 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:content-transfer-encoding; bh=ldwQ2zapLyeHAzw8uFijTAn9ly8AM5u1WOyRyjaP3Zk=; b=NKcTtsaw1sjC0mWwLbznKPRFt6xYz3TiQsGtWMdBAoYNKlUI5kt9GN62WiJ2AyqAZF 4cF8ZmRZmQRNQRRUZqmoHcjOTrsV2mwxv5+1elfLrM0NhnY5afwLokKyLLvqaQlwIlWS heoB4Iehvd7dHRY3i+xa0dgmEzOqghda6LZFfTqm3t0cWXWirBJyaxsqeW4w1hqGFI8n cdyeWoISo0Dm9RywRH7zVDg+N2IK/tdlNlSQdRS7M27CeNUAGQ9AtoM/Epv5TnaD9cl2 qaAlalzxTrl+YV7ln2+BgF2Q2W8BccblKLUumzLkUGMkWJCmhkFAmkmaK9MRcq9+8tXH qFlQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533LW/TthKg3HctHYAA3pGIQZc9HOye9Unsy1HeDHhaDlPx5n7wP nl8g8OnSTr/IAtYrq0tG/zY= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyQfkrvL11VJnuY+c9chpYU7dsBiQWJFjcxfKq5Cvybl7ujD7QvTEe6IJ9BQoP4l1XoknCmaw== X-Received: by 2002:a5d:6cb4:: with SMTP id a20mr1809471wra.192.1611075437416; Tue, 19 Jan 2021 08:57:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from lili ([2a01:e0a:59b:9120:65d2:2476:f637:db1e]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id y11sm5346611wmi.0.2021.01.19.08.57.16 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 19 Jan 2021 08:57:16 -0800 (PST) From: zimoun To: Guillaume Le Vaillant Subject: Re: bug#44112: SBCL is not reproducible References: <86o8kw80bl.fsf@gmail.com> <87wnzjzr77.fsf@yamatai> Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2021 17:48:01 +0100 In-Reply-To: <87wnzjzr77.fsf@yamatai> (Guillaume Le Vaillant's message of "Wed, 21 Oct 2020 14:41:48 +0200") Message-ID: <86r1mg98la.fsf@gmail.com> 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-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 44112 Cc: 44112@debbugs.gnu.org, Pierre Neidhardt X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) Hi, On Wed, 21 Oct 2020 at 14:41, Guillaume Le Vaillant wrote: > zimoun skribis: > >> Using Guix 58af4c9, the package =E2=80=99sbcl=E2=80=99 seems not-reprodu= cible. [...] > Removing this source file timestamp from compiled files would simplify > things. Maybe nothing really depends on it and it would be possible... Any news from upstream? Still unreproducible for me. All the best, simon From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sat Jan 23 04:19:58 2021 Received: (at 44112) by debbugs.gnu.org; 23 Jan 2021 09:19:58 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:33647 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1l3F5K-000263-BZ for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 23 Jan 2021 04:19:58 -0500 Received: from mout02.posteo.de ([185.67.36.66]:35203) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1l3F5I-00025p-Me for 44112@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 23 Jan 2021 04:19:57 -0500 Received: from submission (posteo.de [89.146.220.130]) by mout02.posteo.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 506FF2400FF for <44112@debbugs.gnu.org>; Sat, 23 Jan 2021 10:19:50 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=posteo.net; s=2017; t=1611393590; bh=yCMO7mJwHJu/yWff0Sf26rZ4yCx6dEpGm03q2KniEvU=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:From; b=GLkqsVgp2WNcqR7Lu6UdKeYKdyvLipetvRTT48si3HqspackcKpGVrEeC2Fk0OSf0 ZWKvqY/ULG0LeZ9n9Yq0cx6BXeLF6P+HlAIMqzEXZVtEOHARA1ORM9VaFr6XE9Z2sq YaA/DqKnMZVwGv1ui/bytyHvf15pz5xwz9fBvTx41i8DHGSbrzSwlR9T4iyfvtrHpV PNIHqO6GREySkcfbB06r71WEt3pAyeKu4l7Ocxd4xTYZ/Rzk+fupa5j7GFVqVsNl9c MCvG6seWof15WtdAWXpfVyi+ke9m5ZPrZZZNdxCzTO/a0aWyZLUH9S0lzAOnLIsKWk yul2JOzOIto0A== Received: from customer (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by submission (posteo.de) with ESMTPSA id 4DN9ZD2tf9z6tmF; Sat, 23 Jan 2021 10:19:46 +0100 (CET) References: <86o8kw80bl.fsf@gmail.com> <87wnzjzr77.fsf@yamatai> <86r1mg98la.fsf@gmail.com> User-agent: mu4e 1.4.14; emacs 27.1 From: Guillaume Le Vaillant To: zimoun Subject: Re: bug#44112: SBCL is not reproducible In-reply-to: <86r1mg98la.fsf@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2021 10:19:37 +0100 Message-ID: <874kj8ko2e.fsf@yamatai> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 44112 Cc: 44112@debbugs.gnu.org, Pierre Neidhardt X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -3.3 (---) --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable zimoun skribis: > Hi, > > On Wed, 21 Oct 2020 at 14:41, Guillaume Le Vaillant wrot= e: >> zimoun skribis: >> >>> Using Guix 58af4c9, the package =E2=80=99sbcl=E2=80=99 seems not-reprod= ucible. > > [...] > >> Removing this source file timestamp from compiled files would simplify >> things. Maybe nothing really depends on it and it would be possible... > > Any news from upstream? Still unreproducible for me. > > > All the best, > simon So far Slime still uses the function getting the source file timestamp, so these timestamps can't be removed from SBCL. A patch for Slime would be accepted (see [2]), but as far as I know nobody has worked on it yet. [2] https://github.com/slime/slime/issues/583 --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iIUEAREKAC0WIQTLxZxm7Ce5cXlAaz5r6CCK3yH+PwUCYAvqKQ8cZ2x2QHBvc3Rl by5uZXQACgkQa+ggit8h/j+WYgD/U5Pvxf1b08a5766PhJYlnBeD9rT6rRXaMoGa mbGi5pIA/iGkqIHaAr7lzuKm+PHRtmkyJNTh3VLtymrt5Jyx2aoY =HZ/Z -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=-- From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Nov 25 12:23:00 2022 Received: (at 44112) by debbugs.gnu.org; 25 Nov 2022 17:23:00 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:37095 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1oycPk-00083x-9t for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 25 Nov 2022 12:23:00 -0500 Received: from sonic313-9.consmr.mail.ne1.yahoo.com ([66.163.185.32]:46011) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1oycPf-00083h-Pa for 44112@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 25 Nov 2022 12:22:59 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=aol.com; s=a2048; t=1669396969; bh=k+I1NKnnIeNoGh0k/aSfiL/nSujTWFZ+ksrtr3LTN9M=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:References:From:Subject:Reply-To; b=eX77B+A5ixIM9wSTuMOfSBVG1HnIPYTgL9ID7ZpFL+1ZP7qDdzhpCDLX700pKzjsW/SBYtllP6/NOhxIwY4fRUq/yoc6lYyTVI68T0k1ckllHhHFwawSQ9H/w+aRZQRICx2L/2GpcOjeht2pzX7AWahrl82pfL9ciuOdy6WqaV3fKCOrsyzVfntrFlCL4YqScNuY6qoOUaxKXzPVyS+66X0LnTiyhe++KJdvxP08P/2tx8dmJdQgEtEzIrvZ/aPRj2u19w+LztPg7wHd891uKM0TROlH0Ftd9+DsFu4uiElFtfJlyY8qEtorHCMkOOoUq/8nJk3L1taIuRKcgpFoiA== X-SONIC-DKIM-SIGN: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.com; s=s2048; t=1669396969; bh=w0i9UOrJo0OyhNw8RzY1A7I7+AGWHuDuGgeFsnJKdDC=; h=X-Sonic-MF:From:To:Subject:Date:From:Subject; b=cxo5fgu+KQRVk9yZpw1vrbNLWOWmVgRwLsW7UhHfRvbAEpP2WUC4h/9/U0ZD+nOwj66fIZn4Mgu+26+C6pThftfbSISbUlSa2BfLiDtZZSHBvUkkb1Ak5OZ98gPmzlvIF5AyFXw0xADfAWK57Fy8Tqq4DhzET/ceh1K0QdnXRhm53FxB/dKCH8KaeigkndJEAPaVwbqEu6A+MqB+kYwDh0985hbviQ7hkF+l8qwIP1hmlDvmNg7UYZ+R3PkJiJtLVpE8bH+jMlf1FrlFxTUYumTSwpHIBflyfFNe2z8sYOFr1hlZacAuATBh5xhyoZNtQ1CobqtvcUOhpKujuZBbFw== X-YMail-OSG: XaBWUO4VM1lJVy237QklSceJxcRW6tZFumKeGYFsydKoJ8e28.BJ3kxdVSbRwZm 8CB5Wt96_3X1HJlb7LcBwwkIXIIUg7d0m3VOGHy7C_TsM7orKOrTGhpBRIu4SnNQILkLosFkhplt m0UFkqYwjnOggUmkIIkZkmxm_dwp1ItDI3SweGBGWFz.WxVAurRSLzrGsm5OEJbnYdxPWzfS1X07 weCW.ToFY5edcgjsZ2oijIdUsR.swHGsFrbJ0Jy_sAEdww1NM0yHcWVoomZtybXZc20AQyf0E4LM 2bVLXfJPqI4Vgs.ZygLjBNjfidmE1RIafnTXnLDbApAoB._pJ16cB13urr6dU97iEX56q59mWw4e IEo6FiILGpFs4TufSPSAMh64mF08fDsiaWt46k.RxIdcmcI4erdWQqxI7a9aLIuXvF9e3NX6svyF bS.7NbwJDVPsJrkU3cJjkFywHPQccA1yR6PneMsbHucul8RueEplGGnxu0tF2dxJ5a_yx0hBrdE. v5e7r2czlWKXXLvC8_ZHuZ1qg7OjYqbmCF1ZXdTE_YVNl7M5HVGwIrncqMDy4uKghYn9NBrlgUHq iYAB.6xKn_dDCwyExua7bYL_Ik6c0D682ofjyWcZ0eikwxJiButVmkJorfynYTXKxpDLRzzdgzmD f8re3IokdWhZm7ih4u053PzmI_6R.f.IcqEmgLrd5fmXy35vCOK7GJe2W3tBtLg3ytCEd1JM6gFD vwqeIeidqRK2ikdazgv5L293FWC8wpTGVHIbjsDo7B8IvSOvoYDszl13r3bZIlm1KHBc9V0aYIb9 hHzN7r_x9sLIgsFK8t81K9OM87PeeyBQEjnSTbREhXWmRBHOpepkwldrkF.fNNTi6hKrJP3x7IOt YLJLVbKwBQD9mWuk1dUVMnb0XjGZIl_ToPIMNvhneMVzSs6mRbYUShklGQuIfz3c_ekHJ64M3bJS Gaqdc46wap5fmTZ6W2_dHuNbo5sbOnlxDSYVsiDmDgMtVL9eT_R2.gFKaLmxOw20_4RZba5eqePC dqYuGf9nakXOXjVC2EoZ5HgeJMT50G14Gq9.P26WlxEUECpD5NRzn7H96wUYvmJ3WF_Y9zAS1tE7 4l0qvByOW1OdiNd4x4VpjAUDppo26aQ0is9jyYfT1wTSmT6RjWcAaDM13wmU3faKVovuA7ZNnaSJ vK45AqpWumVuj1oOd7dgf21g5HPxU85g8jWYmdFruHvZ84PwqBrZmDC21Rpg5AVDccxGYBf3.OEb cxyh.L9MlRqksk._ZkylIJ9krTU1fa3BV0moonO2dcMtmuF9nEs8HDbTUL.Mgdr2fH4ZgFRqNLBK RMCpVRRpqwLWVHtsVPwDJCJa..m1pSPGYjdkXVfhIczRIwUpAHl4zYHfiYOXBuXTkSuzTLKswk3c gnjvgYeD7hHLUAynBlhdS5C8LuhkUnyGmoR1X2E2SdCkMd27AUUTjL35nIWHMlmLwrSxpBzytPqg zheinYGX4B.En9wdCt5lufgXy6jOZhN5wPlGTUXa1Cw6rRDqPq1QvX_qmdJT5ESKQYGFUpAi9jQd GLERpgH7SEKv8mMysc3J4QofcKtjKWp67.nEyuTTbEjjwpd6YUy.RXqw0vMpoD2Yeun2VjMvygiV i8nIMQ21Wh2EGdFZ9N7EiOqJ585imfzwY9ZHJ8LRYbAAaXCsoxMlXgpGO9rDfac9.gqZ0ZopeUj5 etKyjx4nrjHuNXS3Wqm.wzR_ZsVgenKCVgwwfbeD8kBQTqXMsGpzMFmxfBaz__zsCTPxRVzXnfN4 2katZ9hIPpKMc58_6lGEk.E4AH0aRcJxQVz30R1tDMgBgwEfnYVJ2Wj.cCj6AnwEaT4TmInSB.ZO X3rMqVIAlWcBb7pvse2zAzT4VJXDpajruly7zG30xCwm7ej27f1ZU12PjhJdIvForsrDCDeYn1_d a5cOFv1I1Ls_kl77yKVTadWSvGo3g6KKwMoDhhyBgcxjCBf37.pgnuTeWY_zcAq7ronS5wQaiV.X gA__raFpmxO2oY91TEgONvb03sJ2N85TYmJMPjSH5bCc8kkvnObY7vqfKyGX8RO9V_3EjRGim2Bm 3tT8b_xLRpLM8ce_pZXqJAbhZhGbHi0S74x_bmelgFfBZ5C4H5QzLfdJhk0hMFgCXyck5czEIZTf HF68oJ3ozRfSwW704wSsWW9EPrlCoAoOamd19p3iTjsQcLBw408H3l6wLbcJ3mIUarZhskpWlhQD lu8q1 X-Sonic-MF: Received: from sonic.gate.mail.ne1.yahoo.com by sonic313.consmr.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with HTTP; Fri, 25 Nov 2022 17:22:49 +0000 Received: by hermes--production-ir2-74cf6dc4df-hf6d4 (Yahoo Inc. Hermes SMTP Server) with ESMTPA ID 3c194fc57b9761c96f9ea732d7888492; Fri, 25 Nov 2022 17:22:44 +0000 (UTC) From: Hendursaga To: 44112@debbugs.gnu.org Subject: Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2022 12:22:20 -0500 Message-ID: <87zgcflzjn.fsf@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain References: <87zgcflzjn.fsf.ref@aol.com> X-Mailer: WebService/1.1.20863 mail.backend.jedi.jws.acl:role.jedi.acl.token.atz.jws.hermes.aol Content-Length: 151 X-Spam-Score: 2.0 (++) X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "debbugs.gnu.org", has NOT identified this incoming email as spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: The patch[1] has been closed for some time, is there any other pending patches blocking going forward? [1] https://github.com/slime/slime/issues/583 Content analysis details: (2.0 points, 10.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 0.0 SPF_HELO_NONE SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record -0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/, no trust [66.163.185.32 listed in list.dnswl.org] 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (hendursaga[at]aol.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record -0.0 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2 RBL: Average reputation (+2) [66.163.185.32 listed in wl.mailspike.net] 2.0 BLANK_SUBJECT Subject is present but empty X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 44112 X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: 1.0 (+) The patch[1] has been closed for some time, is there any other pending patches blocking going forward? [1] https://github.com/slime/slime/issues/583 From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Dec 09 14:02:32 2022 Received: (at 44112) by debbugs.gnu.org; 9 Dec 2022 19:02:32 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:37841 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1p3idk-0001vz-6o for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 09 Dec 2022 14:02:32 -0500 Received: from mail-wm1-f48.google.com ([209.85.128.48]:45662) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1p3idi-0001vn-Fd for 44112@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 09 Dec 2022 14:02:30 -0500 Received: by mail-wm1-f48.google.com with SMTP id n9-20020a05600c3b8900b003d0944dba41so486262wms.4 for <44112@debbugs.gnu.org>; Fri, 09 Dec 2022 11:02:30 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:message-id:date:references:in-reply-to:subject:cc:to :from:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=fPh1ktlfo2rXqFuTNdicxkAUkg8igfGq6Lv3BzFJ7P8=; b=Y91Md3sPGgchqQpIW3MIDVLhK0O9w5z7sbe6W1x8ZrnLflRnfxOOSUyE7WDg5lMSDL bzrTDn4szZufKuAsNevfviIgztIrM5mrD2NhEiqyL4AJtPrVfPfWFAbyfEc0stqfs9VY 2s2SN72+m7lW+PQaWDD0dfEPe//515Ig8LANEOAc4FAlB9SEJmo29ZFCPRhvW35XTnDK l1ylP76+eyTXIMvvl0JMbdwdw8O4oRIKTl4NuEhDYwaLjDuR5t9OShWH7KZrZRliHUEr gp7sI0oxOFmRcOU/JoCmaIP3Tr1QW//UTseQKPigbNMYj6hc1QD26Mny2C5/BDs2/5AS VgVA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=mime-version:message-id:date:references:in-reply-to:subject:cc:to :from:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=fPh1ktlfo2rXqFuTNdicxkAUkg8igfGq6Lv3BzFJ7P8=; b=V4dxropfYCG3ZUqJ0P4tbKtFIiVNzr3KQJt42HVbonSgaoRYrY2Tcp+gcTYyoM8GfA tllX79MIm8aSbOKY5bjAgxyuPqhyBvlHoLxXwCI8NpDXigo4qNgHF6nQeRXxwQ2WrjgT 2CulvA6WN61mFo3e2YRozSloKhHqIlxdK9X7HZEt0z2jiit+LkuAvqZ88KFqqhrN/4VG xgV24bG7TjKdVndcMqMQ0vQaSyx9EGmj6woibq/eLK0FA7fZEh5SJdMd9r8v7rAgbJUq B621mMxI8KPGb81DaO6TzF/TPyew7J08NCQz6Eq9WkPIv9qiyCoefdxLV58rlNCJiXH2 51/A== X-Gm-Message-State: ANoB5pmWTgEcO0hycW41g5aARV5IO07KEkBO9C72T0mO1VmxlwRZvtk/ V6EH5I+LonJnzDjFGOObi0E= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AA0mqf4WHFIaeY9cab0KLNU8MjPm++j8tVcswF1U4oHYLjpIHfOY3UYv9+JeoYsUjcu2nhjcmsEHWg== X-Received: by 2002:a05:600c:1c9b:b0:3cf:894d:2cce with SMTP id k27-20020a05600c1c9b00b003cf894d2ccemr1468280wms.4.1670612544517; Fri, 09 Dec 2022 11:02:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from pfiuh07 ([193.48.40.241]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 17-20020a05600c26d100b003c6c3fb3cf6sm543766wmv.18.2022.12.09.11.02.24 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Fri, 09 Dec 2022 11:02:24 -0800 (PST) From: zimoun To: Hendursaga , 44112@debbugs.gnu.org Subject: Re: bug#44112: In-Reply-To: <87zgcflzjn.fsf@aol.com> References: <87zgcflzjn.fsf.ref@aol.com> <87zgcflzjn.fsf@aol.com> Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2022 19:50:37 +0100 Message-ID: <87k030pg1u.fsf@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 44112 Cc: glv@posteo.net X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) Hi, Thank you for the follow up. On Fri, 25 Nov 2022 at 12:22, Hendursaga via Bug reports for GNU Guix wrote: > The patch[1] has been closed for some time, is there any other pending patches blocking going forward? > > [1] https://github.com/slime/slime/issues/583 Indeed, but the package sbcl is not yet reproducible. The remaining issue is about PDF. Using Guix 28d1e51, I get: --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- $ diff -r --no-dereference /gnu/store/0q9z6j5ml4rkfrg57axznasdjfm7x803-sbcl-2.2.11-doc{,-check} Binary files /gnu/store/0q9z6j5ml4rkfrg57axznasdjfm7x803-sbcl-2.2.11-doc/share/doc/sbcl/sbcl.pdf and /gnu/store/0q9z6j5ml4rkfrg57axznasdjfm7x803-sbcl-2.2.11-doc-check/share/doc/sbcl/sbcl.pdf differ --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- Cheers, simon