ot;) to report the
errors.
[0] https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-06/msg02210.html
[1] https://wiki.debian.org/ReproducibleBuilds/TimestampsFromCPPMacros
[2] https://reproducible-builds.org/specs/source-date-epoch/
Best regards,
Dhole
gcc/c-family/ChangeLog:
2015-10-10 Eduard Sanou
Ma
On 11/16/2015 02:05 PM, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> On 11/15/2015 11:14 PM, Dhole wrote:
>> gcc/c-family/ChangeLog:
>>
>> 2015-10-10 Eduard Sanou
>
> I can't find a previous change from you in the sources, so the first
> question would be whether you've gone th
in cppenv.texi.
I have added the documentation as required, it's included in the
attached patch.
Regarding the copyright assignment process, it's in progress :)
Best regards,
Dhole
gcc/c-family/ChangeLog:
2015-11-18 Eduard Sanou
Matthias Klose
* c-common.c (get
On 11/19/2015 04:35 PM, Dhole wrote:
> On 11/17/2015 12:26 AM, Joseph Myers wrote:
>> fprintf to stderr is never appropriate. All diagnostics should go through
>> a diagnostic function that properly causes the message to be translated.
>>
>> If you want a fatal er
rg/ReproducibleBuilds/TimestampsFromCPPMacros
Best regards,
Dhole
diff --git a/libcpp/macro.c b/libcpp/macro.c
index 1e0a0b5..a52e3cb 100644
--- a/libcpp/macro.c
+++ b/libcpp/macro.c
@@ -349,14 +349,38 @@ _cpp_builtin_macro_text (cpp_reader *pfile, cpp_hashnode
*node)
slow on some systems.
, you should be aware of point 10 here:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/Community (You only need to convince the
> decision-makers). I'm not one of them ;)
Thanks for the tip!
[1] https://www.gnu.org/software/help2man/
Best regards,
Dhole
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
On 06/30/2015 06:23 PM, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
> On 30 June 2015 at 17:18, Dhole wrote:
>> In the debian reproducible builds project we have considered several
>> options to address this issue. We considered redefining the __DATE__ and
>> __TIME__ defines by command lin
ight assignment process :)
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-06/msg02210.html
[2] https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-11/msg01890.html
[3] https://wiki.debian.org/ReproducibleBuilds/TimestampsFromCPPMacros
[4] https://reproducible-builds.org/specs/source-date-epoch/
Best regards,
--
Hi Bernd,
On 16-04-25 12:15:50, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> On 04/18/2016 02:26 PM, Dhole wrote:
> >A few months ago I submited a patch to allow the embedded timestamps by
> >C/C++ macros to be set externally [2], which was already an improvement
> >over [1]. I was told to wait
k the general
> principle of no capitalization probably applies, so "No", "Trailing", and
> "Value" should be lowercase.
Done.
> >+ time_t source_date_epoch = (time_t) -1;
> >+
> >+ source_date_epoch = get_source_date_epoch ();
>
&g
tcase; first I need to get
familiar with the testing framework and learn how to set environment
variables in tests. Any tips on that will be really welcome!
Also, I'll take a look at the -fcompare-debug, see what's the best way
to get the same __TIME__ and __DATE__ with the help of
SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH.
[1] https://reproducible-builds.org/specs/source-date-epoch/
[2] https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-06/msg02270.html
Cheers,
--
Dhole
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
ment that, but I can't manage to
reproduce the false positive from the link. Maybe the test code I'm
using compiles too fast. I'm not familiar with -fcompare-debug either.
Could you provide me some code with instructions to reproduce this false
positive, to see if my patch is wo
message to the thread with the patch
implementing the other mentioned issues. I've mistakenly sent it from
another email account of mine:
Cheers,
--
Dhole
/* { dg-do run } */
/* { dg-set-target-env-var SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH "123456" } */
int
main(void)
{
__builtin_printf
999 23:59:59 UTC", which is the latest date that __DATE__ and
> > + __TIME__ can store. */
> > +#define MAX_SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH 253402300799
>
> This is bigger than INT_MAX, doesn't it trigger a warning that breaks
> bootstrap?
Sorry but I don't understand the issue. Is defining a macro to a
integer bigger than INT_MAX invalid?
--
Dhole
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
e
> >execution? dg-set-compiler-env-var ?
>
> Maybe. Eduard, can you look into that?
Yes! I'll look into that and share it here once I have something :)
BTW: review on my patch addressig several comments from this tread is
very welcome:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-05/
once computed, and maybe add a testcase that the error is printed only once
> (once we have the dejagnu machinery).
>
> The callback could potentially be NULL, right, if this isn't called from one
> of the C frontends? Best to check for that as well.
I've added the pfile->s
On 16-05-12 11:16:57, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> On 05/12/2016 02:36 AM, Dhole wrote:
> >+ error_at (input_location, "environment variable SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH
> >must "
> >+"expand to a non-negative integer less than or equal to %wd&quo
PING
--
Dhole
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
;s:
-2: no yet set
-1: disabled
non-negative: use use this value SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-05/msg01026.html
Cheers,
--
Dhole
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On 16-05-24 12:06:48, James Clarke wrote:
> Hi,
> > On 24 May 2016, at 11:59, Dhole wrote:
> >
> > Hey!
> >
> > I'm the original author of the SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH patch.
> >
> > I've just seen this. I believe that this bug was fixed in
Hi,
The copyright assignment process is now complete :)
Let me know if I'm required to do anything else regarding the patch I sent.
Best regards,
Dhole
21 matches
Mail list logo
