[Looping in Holger; see below] > I think it's worth pursuing to see if there is a compiler or hardware > bug here; I'll continue using bc for nickle, but we can extract the > program which generates that data from the repository and use it for > testing along with the shorter possible reproducer I wrote here. > > Finding another x86 FPU bug would be notable.
… and a considerable coup for Reproducible Builds (!). But before we get ahead of ourselves, Holger, can you compile this binary using "cc -static -O2 bug-1086188.c -lm" on one of the amd64 testing hosts: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?att=1;bug=1086188;filename=bug-1086188.c;msg=10 and then, taking that binary, run it on another? A quick glance at <https://bugs.debian.org/1086188> should give you the full context. Looking at <https://tests.reproducible-builds.org/debian/history/nickle.html>, I'm not sure it matters which hosts, and whilst I think of it, the fact that it is unreproducible between a number of amd64 hosts there suggests that this isn't a hardware bug specific to one machine (?). Regards, -- ,''`. : :' : Chris Lamb `. `'` la...@debian.org 🍥 chris-lamb.co.uk `-
