[PATCH core-updates] gnu: guile: Fix failing tests on i686-linux.

DoneSubmitted by Maxime Devos.
Details
5 participants
  • Thiago Jung Bauermann
  • Efraim Flashner
  • Ludovic Courtès
  • Maxime Devos
  • Mathieu Othacehe
Owner
unassigned
Severity
normal
M
M
Maxime Devos wrote on 20 Jul 13:27 +0200
(address . guix-patches@gnu.org)(name . Maxime Devos)(address . maximedevos@telenet.be)
20210720112712.25905-1-maximedevos@telenet.be
i586-gnu might have the same issue.
* gnu/packages/guile.scm (guile-3.0)[arguments]<#:configure-flags>: Add "-fexcess-precision=standard" to CFLAGS.--- gnu/packages/guile.scm | 6 +++++- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
Toggle diff (26 lines)diff --git a/gnu/packages/guile.scm b/gnu/packages/guile.scmindex d78c57e88c..e1f6495837 100644--- a/gnu/packages/guile.scm+++ b/gnu/packages/guile.scm@@ -16,6 +16,7 @@ ;;; Copyright © 2018 Eric Bavier <bavier@member.fsf.org> ;;; Copyright © 2019 Taylan Kammer <taylan.kammer@gmail.com> ;;; Copyright © 2020, 2021 Efraim Flashner <efraim@flashner.co.il>+;;; Copyright © 2021 Maxime Devos <maximedevos@telenet.be> ;;; ;;; This file is part of GNU Guix. ;;;@@ -316,7 +317,10 @@ without requiring the source code to be rewritten.") (arguments (substitute-keyword-arguments (package-arguments guile-2.2) ((#:configure-flags flags ''())- (let ((flags `(cons "--enable-mini-gmp" ,flags)))+ ;; -fexcess-precision=standard is required when compiling for+ ;; i686-linux, otherwise "numbers.test" will fail.+ (let ((flags `(cons* "CFLAGS=-g -O2 -fexcess-precision=standard"+ "--enable-mini-gmp" ,flags))) ;; XXX: JIT-enabled Guile crashes in obscure ways on GNU/Hurd. (if (hurd-target?) `(cons "--disable-jit" ,flags)-- 2.32.0
L
L
Ludovic Courtès wrote on 20 Jul 15:55 +0200
(name . Maxime Devos)(address . maximedevos@telenet.be)(address . 49659@debbugs.gnu.org)
871r7tks2i.fsf@gnu.org
Hi!
Maxime Devos <maximedevos@telenet.be> skribis:
Toggle quote (2 lines)> i586-gnu might have the same issue.
Please add a “Fixes …” line.
Toggle quote (4 lines)> * gnu/packages/guile.scm> (guile-3.0)[arguments]<#:configure-flags>: Add> "-fexcess-precision=standard" to CFLAGS.
Nitpick: the first two lines can be joined. :-)
Toggle quote (8 lines)> (substitute-keyword-arguments (package-arguments guile-2.2)> ((#:configure-flags flags ''())> - (let ((flags `(cons "--enable-mini-gmp" ,flags)))> + ;; -fexcess-precision=standard is required when compiling for> + ;; i686-linux, otherwise "numbers.test" will fail.> + (let ((flags `(cons* "CFLAGS=-g -O2 -fexcess-precision=standard"> + "--enable-mini-gmp" ,flags)))
Yay! Questions:
1. Should we make it conditional on (or (string-prefix? "i686-" %host-type) (string-prefix? "i586-" %host-type)) ? (I wonder why armhf-linux doesn’t have the same problem.)
2. Is there any downside to compiling all of libguile with this flag?
3. Do we have a clear explanation of why ‘-fexcess-precision=fast’ (the default) would lead to failures in ‘numbers.test’?
I looked at the GCC manual (info "(gcc) Optimize Options") and at linksyou provided earlier on IRC, but I can’t really explain how this wouldlead those tests to fail: https://issues.guix.gnu.org/49368.
I added a ‘printf’ call in ‘scm_i_inexact_floor_divide’, which is whereit all happens:
Toggle snippet (17 lines)static voidscm_i_inexact_floor_divide (double x, double y, SCM *qp, SCM *rp){ if (SCM_UNLIKELY (y == 0)) scm_num_overflow (s_scm_floor_divide); /* or return a NaN? */ else { double q = floor (x / y); double r = x - q * y; printf ("%s x=%f y=%f x/y=%f floor(x/y)=%f q=%f r=%f\n", __func__, x, y, x/y, floor (x/y), q, r); *qp = scm_i_from_double (q); *rp = scm_i_from_double (r); }}
I get this:
Toggle snippet (6 lines)scheme@(guile-user)> (euclidean/ 130. (exact->inexact 10/7))scm_i_inexact_floor_divide x=130.000000 y=1.428571 x/y=91.000000 floor(x/y)=90.000000 q=90.000000 r=1.428571$1 = 90.0$2 = 1.4285714285714257
So it’s really ‘floor’ that’s messing up somehow.
Perhaps we have to just accept it, use the flag, and be done with it,but that’s frustrating.
Thoughts?
Ludo’.
M
M
Maxime Devos wrote on 20 Jul 18:55 +0200
(name . Ludovic Courtès)(address . ludo@gnu.org)(address . 49659@debbugs.gnu.org)
ca331c5fb87a4d0697c5282e5452e0e0eaae6424.camel@telenet.be
Ludovic Courtès schreef op di 20-07-2021 om 15:55 [+0200]:
Toggle quote (8 lines)> Hi!> > Maxime Devos <maximedevos@telenet.be> skribis:> > > i586-gnu might have the same issue.> > Please add a “Fixes …” line.
I didn't find the bug report.
Toggle quote (14 lines)> > (substitute-keyword-arguments (package-arguments guile-2.2)> > ((#:configure-flags flags ''())> > - (let ((flags `(cons "--enable-mini-gmp" ,flags)))> > + ;; -fexcess-precision=standard is required when compiling for> > + ;; i686-linux, otherwise "numbers.test" will fail.> > + (let ((flags `(cons* "CFLAGS=-g -O2 -fexcess-precision=standard"> > + "--enable-mini-gmp" ,flags)))> > Yay! Questions:> > 1. Should we make it conditional on> (or (string-prefix? "i686-" %host-type)> (string-prefix? "i586-" %host-type))
Rather, (target-x86-32?). target-x86-32? also recognises "i486-linux-gnu"even though that's not a ‘supported’ cross-target.
Toggle quote (2 lines)> ? (I wonder why armhf-linux doesn’t have the same problem.)
AFAIK floats & doubles on arm don't have excess precision.
Floating-point numbers are either 32-bit or 64-bit,unlike in x86, where the floating-point registers are 80-bitbut (sizeof) double==8 (64 bits).
(I'm ignoring MMX, SSE and the like.)
I don't know any architectures beside x86 which have excess precision."-fexcess-precision=standard" should be harmless on architecturesthat don't have excess precision.
I'd make it unconditional, but conditional on x86-target? should workfor all ‘supported’ targets in Guix.
Toggle quote (2 lines)> 2. Is there any downside to compiling all of libguile with this flag?
I searched with "git grep -F double" and "git grep -F float".Floating-point arithmetic doen't seem to be used much outside numbers.c.
There's vm-engine.c, but the results of the calculations are writtento some (stack?) memory (not a register), so the excess precisionwould be thrown away anyway, so I don't expect a slow-down.
No code appears to be relying on excess precision.
Toggle quote (3 lines)> 3. Do we have a clear explanation of why ‘-fexcess-precision=fast’> (the default) would lead to failures in ‘numbers.test’?
The problem I think is that the rounding choices made in scm_i_inexact_floor_dividemust be consistent with those made in scm_i_inexact_floor_quotientand scm_i_inexact_floor_remainder(There are tests testing whether the results agree.)
"-fexcess-precision=standard" reduces the degrees of freedom GCC hasin choosing when to round, so it is more likely the rounding choicescoincide? It's only an untested hypothesis though.
FWIW, I think this line:
/* in scm_i_inexact_floor_remainder */ return scm_i_from_double (x - y * floor (x / y));
should be (for less fragility in case GCC changes its optimisations andregister allocation / spilling)
/* in scm_i_inexact_floor_remainder */ return scm_i_from_double (x - y * (double) floor (x / y));
even then, there's no guarantee the rounding choices for x/yare the same in scm_i_inexact_floor_divide, scm_i_inexact_floor_remainderand scm_i_inexact_floor_quotient.
Toggle quote (37 lines)> I looked at the GCC manual (info "(gcc) Optimize Options") and at links> you provided earlier on IRC, but I can’t really explain how this would> lead those tests to fail: <https://issues.guix.gnu.org/49368>;.
> I added a ‘printf’ call in ‘scm_i_inexact_floor_divide’, which is where> it all happens:> > --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---> static void> scm_i_inexact_floor_divide (double x, double y, SCM *qp, SCM *rp)> {> if (SCM_UNLIKELY (y == 0))> scm_num_overflow (s_scm_floor_divide); /* or return a NaN? */> else> {> double q = floor (x / y);> double r = x - q * y;> printf ("%s x=%f y=%f x/y=%f floor(x/y)=%f q=%f r=%f\n", __func__,> x, y, x/y, floor (x/y), q, r);> *qp = scm_i_from_double (q);> *rp = scm_i_from_double (r);> }> }> --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---> > I get this:> > --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---> scheme@(guile-user)> (euclidean/ 130. (exact->inexact 10/7))> scm_i_inexact_floor_divide x=130.000000 y=1.428571 x/y=91.000000 floor(x/y)=90.000000 q=90.000000 r=1.428571> $1 = 90.0> $2 = 1.4285714285714257> --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---> > So it’s really ‘floor’ that’s messing up somehow.>
I dunno if 'floor' is broken. Let me explain why this output is possible for awell-implemented 'floor':
I want to note that printf("%f", floor(x/y))can display 16 different strings:
GCC can choose to round 'x' and/or 'y' by moving it from a register to stack memory. (doesn't apply here I think because SCM values discard the excess precision)
GCC can choose to round the result of x/y (same reasons)
GCC can choose to round the result of floor(x/y) (same reasons)
Likewise, printf("%f", x/y) can display 8 different strings, and the roundingchoices may be different from those made for printf("%f", floor(x/y)).
So this inconsistency (x/y=91.00... > 90.00 = floor(x/y)) doesn't reallysurprise me. A more concrete scenario: suppose the CPU is configured to roundupwards, and 'floor' is a mapping between extended-precision floating-point numbers.
Let 'x' and 'y' be two floating-point numbers, such that:
(1) the mathematical value of 'x/y' is slightly less than 91 (2) 'x/y' when calculated in extended precision is slightly less than 91. Denote this approximation as F1. (3) 'x/y' when calculated in double precision is 91 (or slightly larger) (due to the ‘rounding upwards’ mode, in ‘rounding downwards’ it might have been slightly less than 91 as in (2)) Denote this approximation as F2.
Then [floor(x/y)=] floor(F1)=floor(90.999...)=90.0,and [x/y=] F2=91.0, thus we seemingly have x/y >= 1 + floor(x/y),even though that's mathematically nonsense.
Thus, by choosing when to round (in-)appropriately, it is possible (on x86)that printf("x/y=%f, floor(x/y)=%f",x/y,floor(x/y)) will output "x/y=91.0 floor(x/y)=90.0".
(Please tell if I made an error somewhere.)
Greetings,Maxime
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iI0EABYKADUWIQTB8z7iDFKP233XAR9J4+4iGRcl7gUCYPcAGBccbWF4aW1lZGV2b3NAdGVsZW5ldC5iZQAKCRBJ4+4iGRcl7hKyAQDJ5XlQC2mQ7FYEHe5CSJkDoEruyljUJ9ZQ9NoE8PgYMAEAyRzRhrXT5MyPD6NUUNrwVAvAy1twRHMZpQ2S8EbVMQQ==PqZC-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

E
E
Efraim Flashner wrote on 20 Jul 20:22 +0200
Re: [bug#49659] [PATCH core-updates] gnu: guile: Fix failing tests on i686-linux.
(name . Ludovic Courtès)(address . ludo@gnu.org)
YPcUaWxhYMebiTIa@3900XT
On Tue, Jul 20, 2021 at 03:55:49PM +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
Toggle quote (34 lines)> Hi!> > Maxime Devos <maximedevos@telenet.be> skribis:> > > i586-gnu might have the same issue.> > Please add a “Fixes …” line.> > > * gnu/packages/guile.scm> > (guile-3.0)[arguments]<#:configure-flags>: Add> > "-fexcess-precision=standard" to CFLAGS.> > Nitpick: the first two lines can be joined. :-)> > > (substitute-keyword-arguments (package-arguments guile-2.2)> > ((#:configure-flags flags ''())> > - (let ((flags `(cons "--enable-mini-gmp" ,flags)))> > + ;; -fexcess-precision=standard is required when compiling for> > + ;; i686-linux, otherwise "numbers.test" will fail.> > + (let ((flags `(cons* "CFLAGS=-g -O2 -fexcess-precision=standard"> > + "--enable-mini-gmp" ,flags)))> > Yay! Questions:> > 1. Should we make it conditional on> (or (string-prefix? "i686-" %host-type)> (string-prefix? "i586-" %host-type))> ? (I wonder why armhf-linux doesn’t have the same problem.)> > Thoughts?> > Ludo’.>
I'd also like to mention that this bug doesn't show up on 32-bit powerpc.
-- Efraim Flashner <efraim@flashner.co.il> אפרים פלשנרGPG key = A28B F40C 3E55 1372 662D 14F7 41AA E7DC CA3D 8351Confidentiality cannot be guaranteed on emails sent or received unencrypted
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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YOl4-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

L
L
Ludovic Courtès wrote on 20 Jul 22:51 +0200
Re: bug#49659: [PATCH core-updates] gnu: guile: Fix failing tests on i686-linux.
(name . Maxime Devos)(address . maximedevos@telenet.be)(address . 49659@debbugs.gnu.org)
87fsw8k8sw.fsf_-_@gnu.org
Maxime Devos <maximedevos@telenet.be> skribis:
Toggle quote (2 lines)> Ludovic Courtès schreef op di 20-07-2021 om 15:55 [+0200]:
[...]
Toggle quote (7 lines)>> 1. Should we make it conditional on>> (or (string-prefix? "i686-" %host-type)>> (string-prefix? "i586-" %host-type))>> Rather, (target-x86-32?). target-x86-32? also recognises "i486-linux-gnu"> even though that's not a ‘supported’ cross-target.
Yes, makes sense.
Toggle quote (17 lines)>> ? (I wonder why armhf-linux doesn’t have the same problem.)>> AFAIK floats & doubles on arm don't have excess precision.>> Floating-point numbers are either 32-bit or 64-bit,> unlike in x86, where the floating-point registers are 80-bit> but (sizeof) double==8 (64 bits).>> (I'm ignoring MMX, SSE and the like.)>> I don't know any architectures beside x86 which have excess precision.> "-fexcess-precision=standard" should be harmless on architectures> that don't have excess precision.>> I'd make it unconditional, but conditional on x86-target? should work> for all ‘supported’ targets in Guix.
Alright.
I’d still err on the side of making the change only for target-x86-32?,because that’s the only case where we know it’s needed.
Toggle quote (11 lines)>> 2. Is there any downside to compiling all of libguile with this flag?>> I searched with "git grep -F double" and "git grep -F float".> Floating-point arithmetic doen't seem to be used much outside numbers.c.>> There's vm-engine.c, but the results of the calculations are written> to some (stack?) memory (not a register), so the excess precision> would be thrown away anyway, so I don't expect a slow-down.>> No code appears to be relying on excess precision.
OK.
Toggle quote (30 lines)>> 3. Do we have a clear explanation of why ‘-fexcess-precision=fast’>> (the default) would lead to failures in ‘numbers.test’?>> The problem I think is that the rounding choices made in> scm_i_inexact_floor_divide> must be consistent with those made in> scm_i_inexact_floor_quotient> and > scm_i_inexact_floor_remainder> (There are tests testing whether the results agree.)>> "-fexcess-precision=standard" reduces the degrees of freedom GCC has> in choosing when to round, so it is more likely the rounding choices> coincide? It's only an untested hypothesis though.>> FWIW, I think this line:>> /* in scm_i_inexact_floor_remainder */> return scm_i_from_double (x - y * floor (x / y));>> should be (for less fragility in case GCC changes its optimisations and> register allocation / spilling)>> /* in scm_i_inexact_floor_remainder */> return scm_i_from_double (x - y * (double) floor (x / y));>> even then, there's no guarantee the rounding choices for x/y> are the same in scm_i_inexact_floor_divide, scm_i_inexact_floor_remainder> and scm_i_inexact_floor_quotient.
Makes sense. Seems to me that this should simply be implementeddifferently to avoid the inconsistency in the first place (or one couldignore IA32 altogether…).
Toggle quote (37 lines)> I dunno if 'floor' is broken. Let me explain why this output is possible for a> well-implemented 'floor':>> I want to note that printf("%f", floor(x/y))> can display 16 different strings:>> GCC can choose to round 'x' and/or 'y' by moving it from a register to stack memory.> (doesn't apply here I think because SCM values discard the excess precision)>> GCC can choose to round the result of x/y (same reasons)>> GCC can choose to round the result of floor(x/y) (same reasons)>> Likewise, printf("%f", x/y) can display 8 different strings, and the rounding> choices may be different from those made for printf("%f", floor(x/y)).>> So this inconsistency (x/y=91.00... > 90.00 = floor(x/y)) doesn't really> surprise me. A more concrete scenario: suppose the CPU is configured to round> upwards, and 'floor' is a mapping between extended-precision floating-point numbers.>> Let 'x' and 'y' be two floating-point numbers, such that:>> (1) the mathematical value of 'x/y' is slightly less than 91> (2) 'x/y' when calculated in extended precision is slightly less than 91.> Denote this approximation as F1.> (3) 'x/y' when calculated in double precision is 91 (or slightly larger)> (due to the ‘rounding upwards’ mode, in ‘rounding downwards’ it might> have been slightly less than 91 as in (2))> Denote this approximation as F2.>> Then [floor(x/y)=] floor(F1)=floor(90.999...)=90.0,> and [x/y=] F2=91.0, thus we seemingly have x/y >= 1 + floor(x/y),> even though that's mathematically nonsense.>> Thus, by choosing when to round (in-)appropriately, it is possible (on x86)> that printf("x/y=%f, floor(x/y)=%f",x/y,floor(x/y)) will output "x/y=91.0 floor(x/y)=90.0".
I’m no expert but that makes sense to me.
Could you send an updated patch?
If you think of a way to fix the issue in Guile itself, we can also dothat. :-)
Thanks for the investigation & explanation!
Ludo’.
M
M
Maxime Devos wrote on 20 Jul 23:34 +0200
[PATCH v2\ core-updates v2] gnu: guile: Fix failing tests on i686-linux.
(address . 49659@debbugs.gnu.org)
20210720213417.5285-1-maximedevos@telenet.be
i586-gnu might have the same issue.
* gnu/packages/guile.scm (guile-3.0)[arguments]<#:configure-flags>: Add "-fexcess-precision=standard" to CFLAGS when (target-x86-32?) is true.
Fixes: https://issues.guix.gnu.org/49368.--- gnu/packages/guile.scm | 19 ++++++++++++++----- 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
Toggle diff (39 lines)diff --git a/gnu/packages/guile.scm b/gnu/packages/guile.scmindex d78c57e88c..86621e4ca0 100644--- a/gnu/packages/guile.scm+++ b/gnu/packages/guile.scm@@ -16,6 +16,7 @@ ;;; Copyright © 2018 Eric Bavier <bavier@member.fsf.org> ;;; Copyright © 2019 Taylan Kammer <taylan.kammer@gmail.com> ;;; Copyright © 2020, 2021 Efraim Flashner <efraim@flashner.co.il>+;;; Copyright © 2021 Maxime Devos <maximedevos@telenet.be> ;;; ;;; This file is part of GNU Guix. ;;;@@ -316,11 +317,19 @@ without requiring the source code to be rewritten.") (arguments (substitute-keyword-arguments (package-arguments guile-2.2) ((#:configure-flags flags ''())- (let ((flags `(cons "--enable-mini-gmp" ,flags)))- ;; XXX: JIT-enabled Guile crashes in obscure ways on GNU/Hurd.- (if (hurd-target?)- `(cons "--disable-jit" ,flags)- flags)))+ ;; XXX: JIT-enabled Guile crashes in obscure ways on GNU/Hurd.+ `(cons* ,@(if (hurd-target?)+ '("--disable-jit")+ '())+ ;; -fexcess-precision=standard is required when compiling for+ ;; i686-linux, otherwise "numbers.test" will fail+ ;; (see <https://issues.guix.gnu.org/49368> and+ ;; <https://issues.guix.gnu.org/49659>).+ ,@(if (target-x86-32?)+ '("CFLAGS=-g -O2 -fexcess-precision=standard")+ '())+ "--enable-mini-gmp"+ ,flags)) ((#:phases phases) `(modify-phases ,phases (add-before 'check 'disable-stack-overflow-test-- 2.32.0
L
L
Ludovic Courtès wrote on 21 Jul 15:49 +0200
Re: bug#49659: [PATCH core-updates] gnu: guile: Fix failing tests on i686-linux.
(name . Maxime Devos)(address . maximedevos@telenet.be)(address . 49659-done@debbugs.gnu.org)
87v953hj50.fsf_-_@gnu.org
Hi,
Maxime Devos <maximedevos@telenet.be> skribis:
Toggle quote (8 lines)> i586-gnu might have the same issue.>> * gnu/packages/guile.scm (guile-3.0)[arguments]<#:configure-flags>:> Add "-fexcess-precision=standard" to CFLAGS when> (target-x86-32?) is true.>> Fixes: <https://issues.guix.gnu.org/49368>.
I tweaked the commit log and pushed asfccc0275091af10a46471c68df525d19f446af9e.
Looks like we should be able to move forward with this branch now,thank you!
Ludo’.
Closed
M
M
Mathieu Othacehe wrote on 21 Jul 16:50 +0200
(address . 49659@debbugs.gnu.org)
875yx3pvpq.fsf@gnu.org
Hey,
Toggle quote (6 lines)> I tweaked the commit log and pushed as> fccc0275091af10a46471c68df525d19f446af9e.>> Looks like we should be able to move forward with this branch now,> thank you!
Thanks for taking care of that Maxime & Ludo :). Should we create acore-updates-frozen branch that Cuirass would build for the "all"subset? I can take care of that if so.
Mathieu
L
L
Ludovic Courtès wrote on 23 Jul 11:07 +0200
(name . Mathieu Othacehe)(address . othacehe@gnu.org)
8735s5cs9q.fsf@gnu.org
Hi,
Mathieu Othacehe <othacehe@gnu.org> skribis:
Toggle quote (10 lines)>> I tweaked the commit log and pushed as>> fccc0275091af10a46471c68df525d19f446af9e.>>>> Looks like we should be able to move forward with this branch now,>> thank you!>> Thanks for taking care of that Maxime & Ludo :). Should we create a> core-updates-frozen branch that Cuirass would build for the "all"> subset? I can take care of that if so.
There are “two last things” to check IMO:
1. Make sure powerpc64le-linux is in a good state. Can we get it built? (We discussed adding a worker on the OSUOSL machine but I think we eventually dropped the ball.)
2. https://issues.guix.gnu.org/49597 will trigger rebuilds. I was waiting before applying it so we get several people looking into it; Maxime had valid criticism, I’m interested in hearing from others too. :-)
Once we’re OK on these two fronts, let’s branch ‘core-updates-frozen’and unleash our package-fixing superpowers!
Ludo’.
M
M
Maxime Devos wrote on 23 Jul 11:27 +0200
(address . 49659@debbugs.gnu.org)
bafd3cf0cd2053d2acf37d402abb226d63ee4a8b.camel@telenet.be
Ludovic Courtès schreef op vr 23-07-2021 om 11:07 [+0200]:
Toggle quote (16 lines)> Hi,> > Mathieu Othacehe <othacehe@gnu.org> skribis:> > > > I tweaked the commit log and pushed as> > > fccc0275091af10a46471c68df525d19f446af9e.> > > > > > Looks like we should be able to move forward with this branch now,> > > thank you!> > > > Thanks for taking care of that Maxime & Ludo :). Should we create a> > core-updates-frozen branch that Cuirass would build for the "all"> > subset? I can take care of that if so.> > There are “two last things” to check IMO: [...]
For --target=x86_64-w64-mingw32, the patchhttps://issues.guix.gnu.org/49694 is required,to fix a build failure of x86_64-w64-mingw32-binutils.
Greetings,Maxime.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iI0EABYKADUWIQTB8z7iDFKP233XAR9J4+4iGRcl7gUCYPqLgxccbWF4aW1lZGV2b3NAdGVsZW5ldC5iZQAKCRBJ4+4iGRcl7sraAQCYZ/p1ZrPZkloNdJIT4MsSGT1b8YEI2HrlUmK+VXelfgD+J1skRhFF5SYxjGNwz76o2uBivlptDwqqOnBnwMN3/w4==1CyS-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

T
T
Thiago Jung Bauermann wrote on 26 Jul 01:52 +0200
Re: [bug#49659] [PATCH core-updates] gnu: guile: Fix failing tests on i686-linux.
5701551.jmBiHemN7o@popigai
Hello,
Em sexta-feira, 23 de julho de 2021, às 06:07:45 -03, Ludovic Courtès escreveu:
Toggle quote (27 lines)> Hi,> > Mathieu Othacehe <othacehe@gnu.org> skribis:> >> I tweaked the commit log and pushed as> >> fccc0275091af10a46471c68df525d19f446af9e.> >> > >> Looks like we should be able to move forward with this branch now,> >> thank you!> > > > Thanks for taking care of that Maxime & Ludo :). Should we create a> > core-updates-frozen branch that Cuirass would build for the "all"> > subset? I can take care of that if so.> > There are “two last things” to check IMO:> > 1. Make sure powerpc64le-linux is in a good state. Can we get it> built? (We discussed adding a worker on the OSUOSL machine but I> think we eventually dropped the ball.)> > 2. <https://issues.guix.gnu.org/49597> will trigger rebuilds. I was> waiting before applying it so we get several people looking into> it; Maxime had valid criticism, I’m interested in hearing from> others too. :-)> > Once we’re OK on these two fronts, let’s branch ‘core-updates-frozen’> and unleash our package-fixing superpowers!
Perhaps libdrm and Mesa could be updated before the freeze as suggested by John Kehayias¹?
Or could/should that be done on a branch apart from core-updates? Not sure if that’s what Ricardo’s suggestion about creating a new branch means.
-- Thanks,Thiago
¹ https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2021-07/msg00105.html
?
Your comment

Commenting via the web interface is currently disabled.

To comment on this conversation send email to 49659@debbugs.gnu.org