Hi, Am Mittwoch, dem 02.02.2022 um 19:51 +0000 schrieb Ekaitz Zarraga: > I mean something like: > > 0 > 1 > 2 > 4 > 8 > 10 > 12 > HUGE_NUMBER > HUGE_NUMBER > ... > HUGE_NUMBER > 15 > 20 > ... > > It's like it corrected itself. It happened in "low numbers" (less > than a > hundred). > > I just say this if it helps in the correction. It's very funny, still > :3 Thanks, that wasn't clear from your original report. As I hinted at in my previous message, I think you'd get such results through well-placed bit flips. I'm not aware of Guix itself intentionally or otherwise causing those, but bit flips are a problem on any modern hardware and thus I'm sure such glitches will be encountered.
- bug#53696: Integer overflow on Guix GC size calculat... Ekaitz Zarraga
- bug#53696: Integer overflow on Guix GC size cal... Liliana Marie Prikler
- bug#53696: Integer overflow on Guix GC size... Ekaitz Zarraga
- bug#53696: Integer overflow on Guix GC ... Liliana Marie Prikler
- bug#53696: Integer overflow on Guix... Ekaitz Zarraga
- bug#53696: Integer overflow on... Liliana Marie Prikler
- bug#53696: Integer overflow on Guix GC size cal... Maxime Devos
- bug#53696: Integer overflow on Guix GC size... Bengt Richter
- bug#53696: Integer overflow on Guix GC ... Bengt Richter
- bug#53696: Integer overflow on Guix GC ... Ludovic Courtès
- bug#53696: Integer overflow on Guix... Ekaitz Zarraga
- bug#53696: Integer overflow on... Ludovic Courtès
- bug#53696: Integer overflo... Ekaitz Zarraga