On Monday 12 February 2007 09:08, Stephen Gran wrote: > [...] reproducibility will suffer. The fact that it failed to run the > binary correctly in this failure instance is good. But another day, it > may fail to correctly run gcc, and that would be bad if it exited 0 with > a wrongly built binary. And couldn't this just as easily happen with *real* machines with motherboard problems, bad memory, overheating CPUs, or, say Pentium floating point errors? Or—heaven forbid—a bug in the compiler or kernel, or incorrect build libraries. I've either had or heard of *all* of these things resulting in bad reproducibility or failed builds. Yet, in practice, these things are not really worth worrying about. To me this just sounds like anti-emulator superstition. -- Wesley J. Landaker <wjl@icecavern.net> <xmpp:wjl@icecavern.net> OpenPGP FP: 4135 2A3B 4726 ACC5 9094 0097 F0A9 8A4C 4CD6 E3D2
Attachment:
pgpQBkjhU26et.pgp
Description: PGP signature