From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri May 06 20:14:56 2022 Received: (at 55283) by debbugs.gnu.org; 7 May 2022 00:14:56 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:50102 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1nn864-00060m-7B for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 06 May 2022 20:14:56 -0400 Received: from cascadia.aikidev.net ([173.255.214.101]:36702) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1nn862-00060D-Qe for 55283@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 06 May 2022 20:14:55 -0400 Received: from localhost (unknown [IPv6:2600:3c01:e000:21:7:77:0:20]) (Authenticated sender: vagrant@cascadia.debian.net) by cascadia.aikidev.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D0A681ABDB; Fri, 6 May 2022 17:14:48 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=debian.org; s=1.vagrant.user; t=1651882488; bh=Gm9XgDkRnssSXUPY9DIxF2Gm8aWMYkBrZ0PagzXdIR8=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=lYK/pT861qfrPsiU4ynZz+dScFZmSNk1Ent+MH+OrTq8yNARqeMh/6sSTEPA0c3lq VLnHWT9CVX/3s18PStu2U8C33qHaPA5e3mWtR7cYiM/Y4gBPnvHUijkhVSu/ESYAVJ eRIN3h7fEHKQDEB44ufrZnSvXfAgjyiR40nZUU4KeOnJH+JyJnqdmmDTpMbkRSCJWg ePqR1L+ehTGTAY2I/pMrcIfdBjNypV7G3FtwwMb9PKZZ+HxPzTDVbNhCo93xewehsR 7UuTHefYpLQ3AXCU3/ak0JS0oa7NNQdgAJNeFbB2hSuuy8wH4oOQSAkqmwzSAxgKMc wk/cCN1zSSrYA== From: Vagrant Cascadian To: Maxime Devos , raingloom , Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= Subject: Re: bug#55283: =?utf-8?Q?=E2=80=98tests=2Fguix-shell-export-manif?= =?utf-8?Q?est=2Esh=E2=80=99?= fails on aarch64-linux In-Reply-To: <871qx68g33.fsf@contorta> References: <87ee1761ci.fsf@inria.fr> <20220506022826.5089eb2c@riseup.net> <5d219586c7a9a5ed2d89b12db73385d9d55adeb9.camel@telenet.be> <871qx68g33.fsf@contorta> Date: Fri, 06 May 2022 17:14:45 -0700 Message-ID: <87wney6vwq.fsf@contorta> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Spam-Score: -0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 55283 Cc: 55283@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 (-) --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 2022-05-06, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: > On 2022-05-06, Maxime Devos wrote: >> raingloom schreef op vr 06-05-2022 om 02:28 [+0200]: >>> > =E2=80=A6)) In guix/cpu.scm: >>> > =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 94:2=C2=A0 0 (cpu->gcc-architecture #f) >>>=20 >>> This indicates the same to me. >>> But I don't know the internals of --tune well enough, so it's just a >>> hunch. >> >> Could anyone who encounters the issue on aarch64-linux send their >> /proc/cpuinfo, such that other people can test the body of 'current- >> cpu' on that copy? What is reading from /proc/cpuinfo? I've heard it suggested that /proc/cpuinfo was more informational and not something to be relied on for anything that actually matters... ? Well, I guess I answered my initial question by reading the error message... guix/cpu.scm ... how did that work before for things like cross-building, where /proc/cpuinfo is *definitely* wrong to get information about the architecture you're building for? > On a rockpro64: > > $ cat /proc/cpuinfo > processor : 0 > BogoMIPS : 48.00 > Features : fp asimd evtstrm aes pmull sha1 sha2 crc32 cpuid > CPU implementer : 0x41 > CPU architecture: 8 > CPU variant : 0x0 > CPU part : 0xd03 > CPU revision : 4 ... > I'll test on some other hardware with a very different cpu and see if it > has the same problem too. And on an APM mustang: $ cat /proc/cpuinfo processor : 0 BogoMIPS : 100.00 Features : fp asimd evtstrm cpuid CPU implementer : 0x50 CPU architecture: 8 CPU variant : 0x0 CPU part : 0x000 CPU revision : 0 processor : 1 BogoMIPS : 100.00 Features : fp asimd evtstrm cpuid CPU implementer : 0x50 CPU architecture: 8 CPU variant : 0x0 CPU part : 0x000 CPU revision : 0 processor : 2 BogoMIPS : 100.00 Features : fp asimd evtstrm cpuid CPU implementer : 0x50 CPU architecture: 8 CPU variant : 0x0 CPU part : 0x000 CPU revision : 0 processor : 3 BogoMIPS : 100.00 Features : fp asimd evtstrm cpuid CPU implementer : 0x50 CPU architecture: 8 CPU variant : 0x0 CPU part : 0x000 CPU revision : 0 processor : 4 BogoMIPS : 100.00 Features : fp asimd evtstrm cpuid CPU implementer : 0x50 CPU architecture: 8 CPU variant : 0x0 CPU part : 0x000 CPU revision : 0 processor : 5 BogoMIPS : 100.00 Features : fp asimd evtstrm cpuid CPU implementer : 0x50 CPU architecture: 8 CPU variant : 0x0 CPU part : 0x000 CPU revision : 0 processor : 6 BogoMIPS : 100.00 Features : fp asimd evtstrm cpuid CPU implementer : 0x50 CPU architecture: 8 CPU variant : 0x0 CPU part : 0x000 CPU revision : 0 processor : 7 BogoMIPS : 100.00 Features : fp asimd evtstrm cpuid CPU implementer : 0x50 CPU architecture: 8 CPU variant : 0x0 CPU part : 0x000 CPU revision : 0 Both exhibit the same error when building guix, just like the original report, basically: guix/cpu.scm:94:2: In procedure cpu->gcc-architecture: In procedure struct-vtable: Wrong type argument in position 1 (expecting st= ruct): #f + rm -r t-guix-manifest-18135 FAIL tests/guix-shell-export-manifest.sh (exit status: 1) live well, vagrant --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iHUEARYKAB0WIQRlgHNhO/zFx+LkXUXcUY/If5cWqgUCYnW59QAKCRDcUY/If5cW qpbXAQDwQQZdshAbA1HqIj5qXC/kaCZXfu11nr200kNaMhgULAD9FbldCtZV7ihp CapckMxdyQUnlO4SCSOhyKT/vcxOlAY= =d3JD -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--