1 files changed, 35 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/syscall/280 b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/syscall/280
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..18809027
--- /dev/null
+++ b/results/classifier/qwen3:32b/reasoning/syscall/280
@@ -0,0 +1,35 @@
+<think>
+Okay, let's try to figure out the category for this bug report. The user is saying that on ARM64, when using qemu-x86_64 with schroot (Debian bullseye), they can't run Chrome and can't load HTML. 
+
+First, I need to understand what each part means. QEMU is an emulator, so qemu-x86_64 would be emulating an x86_64 architecture. Since the host is ARM64, they're probably trying to run x86_64 binaries on an ARM machine using QEMU. Schroot is a tool for running programs in a different chroot environment, so maybe they're using it to set up a Debian Bullseye environment.
+
+The problem is that Chrome isn't running and HTML isn't loading. Now, the possible categories are instruction, syscall, or runtime. 
+
+If it's an instruction issue, maybe there's a specific instruction that's not emulated correctly. But the problem seems more general—Chrome not running and HTML loading issues. That could be due to system calls (syscall) that aren't handled properly. However, runtime errors are other errors that happen during execution, like missing libraries, configuration issues, or compatibility problems.
+
+Wait, but Chrome might require certain system calls to function, like those related to graphics or networking. If the syscalls aren't properly translated or handled by QEMU, that could cause it to fail. However, runtime errors usually refer to issues like missing dependencies, which might not be a QEMU problem per se. 
+
+But the user is specifically pointing out that it's a QEMU issue. So maybe when running x86_64 binaries via QEMU on ARM64, certain syscalls are not being correctly emulated. For example, Chrome might use some x86-specific syscalls that aren't properly translated, leading to failures. Alternatively, maybe it's a runtime issue because the chroot environment isn't properly set up, but the user says it's part of QEMU. 
+
+Another angle: HTML loading could be related to the browser not being able to access resources, which might involve system calls for network access or file access. If QEMU isn't handling those syscalls correctly, that could be the issue. However, runtime errors could also include things like missing libraries or incorrect paths. 
+
+But since the problem occurs specifically when using QEMU to emulate x86_64 on ARM64, and the user is pointing to QEMU as the cause, it's likely a syscall issue. For example, if QEMU's system call translation is missing or incorrect for certain calls needed by Chrome. However, if it's a more general runtime problem like missing dependencies in the chroot, but the user is using schroot with Debian Bullseye, which should have the necessary libraries. 
+
+Alternatively, maybe the problem is that QEMU isn't properly handling the system calls required for Chrome to run, leading to runtime errors. But the categories are instruction, syscall, or runtime. The question is whether it's a syscall error or another runtime error. 
+
+The instruction category is for faulty instructions described in the bug report. The user didn't mention specific instructions, so probably not that. The error is about Chrome not running and HTML not loading, which is higher-level. If the underlying issue is that certain system calls aren't being handled correctly by QEMU (like those required by the browser), then it's a syscall category. If it's a general runtime issue like missing libraries or environment setup, then runtime. 
+
+But since it's within QEMU's emulation, and system calls are a key part of how programs interact with the OS, if QEMU isn't correctly emulating the necessary syscalls for Chrome to function, that would fall under syscall. However, if the problem is more about the environment setup (like schroot not providing the correct libraries), that's runtime. But the user is pointing to QEMU as the problem. 
+
+Another thought: Maybe the issue is that when running x86_64 binaries under QEMU on ARM64, there's a missing system call implementation. For example, Chrome might require certain system calls that are available on x86_64 but not properly emulated in QEMU for ARM64. That would be a syscall category. 
+
+Alternatively, if it's a runtime error within QEMU's emulation (like a crash during execution), but the categories have runtime as "other errors which happen in runtime." So if the problem is not specifically a syscall error but some other runtime issue, like missing support for certain features required by Chrome, then it's runtime. 
+
+But given that the user says it's part of QEMU, and the problem is with running Chrome and loading HTML, which likely requires multiple system calls (networking, UI rendering, etc.), if those syscalls aren't handled properly in QEMU's emulation, then it's a syscall issue. However, if it's a more general runtime problem, like QEMU not properly setting up the environment, then runtime. 
+
+Since the categories are instruction, syscall, runtime, and the user is pointing to QEMU, I think it's likely a syscall issue because the problem is related to system calls not being properly emulated. But I'm a bit uncertain. Another angle: if the problem is that the system calls are being made but failing, that's syscall. If the system calls are not the issue, but something else during runtime, like memory management or other emulator bugs, that's runtime. 
+
+Given that Chrome is a complex application requiring many syscalls, and if those aren't handled correctly by QEMU's syscall translation, it's a syscall error. So I'll go with syscall.
+</think>
+
+syscall
\ No newline at end of file