1 files changed, 60 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:14b/reasoning/manual-review/1257099 b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:14b/reasoning/manual-review/1257099
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..8f36367b9
--- /dev/null
+++ b/results/classifier/deepseek-r1:14b/reasoning/manual-review/1257099
@@ -0,0 +1,60 @@
+<think>
+Alright, so I'm trying to figure out which of these Git commits is causing a bug in the build process. Let me start by understanding what's going on here.
+
+I see that there are several 'git bisect' commands with labels 'good' and 'bad'. This makes me think that someone is using Git bisect to find a specific commit that introduced a bug. The idea behind Git bisect is to narrow down the range of commits where the bug was introduced by testing whether each midpoint is good or bad.
+
+Looking at the provided output, I can see a series of commands:
+
+- Several 'git bisect good' followed by commit hashes and messages.
+- A few 'git bisect bad' commands with their respective commit details.
+
+Each 'good' commit means that the bug didn't exist up to that point, while each 'bad' commit indicates that the bug was present at that point. The goal is to find the earliest commit where the bug appeared, which would be the first 'bad' commit after a series of 'good' ones.
+
+Let me list out the commits in order with their status:
+
+1. [4502b25fd98a38] hw/arm_gic: Make gic_reset a sysbus reset function - good
+2. [aecff6924dab0197b6c8f132e44502b25fd98a38] block/qcow2: Add missing GCC_FMT_ATTR to function report_unsupported() - good
+3. [dd86df756e02b684718dd5378725927361b0ad36] Merge remote-tracking branch 'sstabellini/for_1.1_rc3' into staging - good
+4. [8ebdf9dcc6036171a9f8bac3fe8dc459725a3e83] sun4u: Use cpu_sparc_init() to obtain SPARCCPU - good
+5. [8867aef02e1e5817c72b2e09be4ae952eb0c9d9d] build: move ui/ objects to nested Makefile.objs - good
+6. [e8de1ea849176812765bf30514f66c5450a1edc6] target-xtensa: add attributes to helper functions - bad
+7. [fa79c914efd35cb60e0bc18512c03690c48b13e2] Merge remote-tracking branch 'bonzini/nested-makefiles-3' into staging - bad
+8. [c353f261946ddbd814b333ae2440712b486977fd] build: move per-target hw/ objects to nested Makefile.objs - good
+9. [25f27a4f7160d077d6992e811021b4bc3a82abc1] build: compile oslib-obj-y once - bad
+10. [00c705fb92bc6e69e955aeac3614e05ca02feacd] build: libcacard Makefile cleanups - bad
+11. [49ac9e0a8cfb737d6da9c0b056c062e3dec0ba45] build: move device tree to per-target Makefile.objs - good
+
+Now, the bug was introduced at some point after commit 5 (which is good) and before commit 6, which is bad. So the first bad commit is 6.
+
+But wait, there are multiple bad commits after that. I need to figure out if any of these bad commits could be responsible for the same issue or if they're unrelated. However, since the user provided a series of bisect commands indicating good and bad, it's likely that each 'bad' commit is part of the same bug search.
+
+Looking at the context of the commits:
+
+- Commit 6 adds attributes to helper functions in target-xtensa.
+- Commit 7 merges another branch into staging. It's a merge commit, so it might have brought in other changes, but since it's marked as bad, maybe it introduced the issue or included a bad commit.
+- Commit 9 is about moving hw/ objects, which was previously good (commit 5) and then bad again at commit 9, but that could be a separate change. However, if the user marked both 6 and 7 as bad, perhaps the bug started in 6, continued through merges, and then had other build issues in later commits.
+
+But to pinpoint the exact commit where the bug was introduced, I should look for the first 'bad' commit after a series of 'good' ones. That would be commit 6: [e8de1ea849176812765bf30514f66c5450a1edc6] target-xtensa: add attributes to helper functions.
+
+Is it possible that adding these attributes caused a build issue? Maybe the attributes were not compatible with existing code or caused linker issues, especially if they're part of helper functions used elsewhere.
+
+Alternatively, commit 7 is a merge, so maybe during that merge, another problematic change was introduced. But since the user marked it as bad, perhaps the bug was present in the merged branch.
+
+However, without more context on what exactly the bug is (like build errors or warnings), it's hard to say for sure which specific commit caused it. The key here is that the first 'bad' commit after a series of 'good' ones is likely the culprit.
+
+So, based on the given information and the process of bisecting, the most probable answer is commit 6: [e8de1ea849176812765bf30514f66c5450a1edc6] target-xtensa: add attributes to helper functions.
+
+I should also consider that sometimes merge commits can include multiple changes, so the actual problematic change might be in one of the merged branches. But since commit 6 is marked as bad and it's a specific change, I'll focus on that.
+</think>
+
+The bug was introduced by the commit where target-xtensa helper functions had attributes added. This likely caused a build issue.
+
+**Answer:**
+
+The first 'bad' commit after several 'good' ones is:
+
+```bash
+[e8de1ea849176812765bf30514f66c5450a1edc6] target-xtensa: add attributes to helper functions
+```
+
+This commit is the most probable cause of the bug.
\ No newline at end of file