Shachar Shemesh writes:
> I understand why these keywords were useful for CVS/RCS, where each
> file had its own version number. When working with SVN, however, a
> single number uniquely identifies the entire source tree. Why not
> have that one number and get it done with?
I believe it has bee
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 1:50 PM, Oleg Goldshmidt wrote:
> > I didn't understand how, eg, my C++ scheme don't work. I think it should
> > work even if you're including the $Id$ strings in the headers files.
>
> Apart from the fact that you assume that main.cc is mine (what if my
> product is a lib
On 10/18/2011 12:50 PM, Oleg Goldshmidt wrote:
>> I understood that, and it's still unstable. Since if some young team member
>> not aware of the $Id: trick, will write:
>> log("$Id: %d $Name: %s\n",id,name)
>> ident will return garbage.
> Someone may alter keyword expansions just before the bu
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 12:49 PM, Elazar Leibovich wrote:
> But you shouldn't care that they're having a file scope, do you?
Of course I do. Just as one example: suppose that this/dir/foo.c and
that/other/module/bar.c both #include "xyzzy.h". I want to catch a
build system bug that takes the hea
On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 10:21 PM, Oleg Goldshmidt wrote:
> "Nadav Har'El" writes:
>
>> In any case, because there was always a fear that the compiler might
>> optimize these out, someone invented a new directive, #ident, as in:
>>
>> #ident "$Id$"
>
> This has always been there, but it has never
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011, Nadav Har'El wrote about "Re: Newer gcc swallow version
control keywords":
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2011, Oleg Goldshmidt wrote about "Re: Newer gcc swallow
> version control keywords":
> > It was about C++. C and C++ compilers behave t
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 4:04 PM, Nadav Har'El wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2011, Oleg Goldshmidt wrote about "Re: Newer gcc swallow
> version control keywords":
>> It was about C++. C and C++ compilers behave the same.
>
> I was very surprised to discover that this
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011, Oleg Goldshmidt wrote about "Re: Newer gcc swallow
version control keywords":
> It was about C++. C and C++ compilers behave the same.
I was very surprised to discover that this is indeed the case. I think this
is a BUG. For example, consider thi
> I understood his intention differently. He used his "trick" not just in main,
> but also in every file in his example.
Yes, it does not matter. As I said, he adds an attempt to *refer* to
the global variable in main() to make it "used".
> Did you actually check this in C++?
Yes.
> But in any
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011, Oleg Goldshmidt wrote about "Re: Newer gcc swallow
version control keywords":
> No, no, it is optimized out - Elazar tried to make a global non-static
> (non-file-scope) variable (non-constant) that *is* used (by the main()
> routine - and may be used, inc
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 2:25 PM, Nadav Har'El wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2011, Elazar Leibovich wrote about "Re: Newer gcc swallow
> version control keywords":
>> fileversion.h:
>> class FileVersion {FileVersion(const string& v){__files.push_back(v);}};
>
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011, Elazar Leibovich wrote about "Re: Newer gcc swallow
version control keywords":
> fileversion.h:
> class FileVersion {FileVersion(const string& v){__files.push_back(v);}};
>
> foo.cc:
> static const FileVersion foo("$id$");
Well, basic
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 12:57 PM, Elazar Leibovich wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 12:50 PM, Oleg Goldshmidt
> wrote:
>
>> Someone may alter keyword expansions just before the build, too.
>
> I'm not sure I understand your comment. Are you telling that this is
> unlikely? I agree, this is not a
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 12:50 PM, Oleg Goldshmidt wrote:
> > I understood that, and it's still unstable. Since if some young team
> member
> > not aware of the $Id: trick, will write:
> > log("$Id: %d $Name: %s\n",id,name)
> > ident will return garbage.
>
> Someone may alter keyword expansions
> I understood that, and it's still unstable. Since if some young team member
> not aware of the $Id: trick, will write:
> log("$Id: %d $Name: %s\n",id,name)
> ident will return garbage.
Someone may alter keyword expansions just before the build, too.
> If you have documented way to get the i
xtracting this
> > ident string from the executable
>
> That's the function of ident(1) - and that's what is not working
> because the compiler eats the strings.
>
See my reply to Nadav. I meant unstable because of "$Id: %d, $Name: %s" will
also be printed.
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 11:50 AM, Nadav Har'El wrote:
> One reason that nobody really cares about this trick any more is that it has
> become MUCH LESS IMPORTANT on modern version control systems, e.g., Subversion
> or Git, where there is a single version number (or version
ens for instance if by accident
> you have rcsident and rcs_ident? How would you know from the stripped
> executable which one to trust?).
It's the version control system's function to expand the keywords with
the right data - if I have mul
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 11:50 AM, Nadav Har'El wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2011, Elazar Leibovich wrote about "Re: Newer gcc swallow
> version control keywords":
> > Excuse the idiotic solution, but can't you just add an option to print it
> > out?
> >
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011, Elazar Leibovich wrote about "Re: Newer gcc swallow
version control keywords":
> Excuse the idiotic solution, but can't you just add an option to print it
> out?
>
> int main(int argc,char**argv) {if (argc == 2 && strcmp(argv[1],"--
I guess that it doesn't apply to libraries, which must include this global
variable.
Excuse the idiotic solution, but can't you just add an option to print it
out?
int main(int argc,char**argv) {if (argc == 2 && strcmp(argv[1],"--ident")
puts(ident);...}
The only trick the optimizer can play her
On Mon, Oct 17, 2011, Oleg Goldshmidt wrote about "Re: Newer gcc swallow
version control keywords":
> > In any case, because there was always a fear that the compiler might
> > optimize these out, someone invented a new directive, #ident, as in:
> >
> > #iden
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-04/msg01429.html
I do have three suggestions for you:
>
> 1) The current way to tell the compiler not to throw away
>apparently-unused data is __attribute__((used)), like this:
>
> static const char __attribute__((used)) rcs_sccs_id[] =
> "$Id: @(#)
"Nadav Har'El" writes:
> #if (__GNUC__ >= 4) && (__GNUC_MINOR__ > 4)
> #define USED(x) x __attribute__((used))
> #else
> #define USED(x) x
> #endif
> #define IDENT(x) static const char USED(foo_src_id[]) = x;
>
> and then in each file just do
> #include "ident
Shachar Shemesh wrote on Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 22:47:49 +0200:
> On 10/17/2011 10:29 PM, Oleg Goldshmidt wrote:
> >> - did you try
> >> changing that to:
> >> static const volatile char foo_src_id[] = "$Id$";
> > Hmm... "const volatile" hadn't occurred to me before, but I have just
> > tried it and
Shachar Shemesh writes:
> Just tested it myself. It does, indeed, not work. I wonder why?
> Seems like it SHOULD work. After all, that's what volatile is for,
> right?
I suspected that const was more important than volatile, but it looks
(after I removed const) that what overrules volatile is t
On 10/17/2011 10:29 PM, Oleg Goldshmidt wrote:
>> - did you try
>> changing that to:
>> static const volatile char foo_src_id[] = "$Id$";
> Hmm... "const volatile" hadn't occurred to me before, but I have just
> tried it and it did not work.
Just tested it myself. It does, indeed, not work. I wonde
Shachar Shemesh writes:
> Leaving aside the question of whether that is a good idea
This saved my butt enough times in the past that I think it is ;-)
> - did you try
> changing that to:
> static const volatile char foo_src_id[] = "$Id$";
Hmm... "const volatile" hadn't occurred to me before, b
Baruch Siach writes:
> The -O2, as well as -O and -Os, gcc options enable a set of specific
> optimizations that can each be turned off. The full list is at
> http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-4.6.1/gcc/Optimize-Options.html. Just
> go over this list and disable each optimization, until you find
"Nadav Har'El" writes:
> In any case, because there was always a fear that the compiler might
> optimize these out, someone invented a new directive, #ident, as in:
>
> #ident "$Id$"
This has always been there, but it has never been standard, AFAIK. It
is not a GCC extension, either. Most prepro
On 10/17/2011 06:29 PM, Oleg Goldshmidt wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have a gcc-related question. Problematic platform is Fedora 15 with
> gcc 4.6.1, as well as Fedora 14 with gcc 4.5.1.
>
> I am used to keeping RCS/CVS/SVN keywords (e.g., $Id$) in all my code.
> In the case of C/C++ this normally amounts to
On Mon, Oct 17, 2011, Oleg Goldshmidt wrote about "Newer gcc swallow version
control keywords":
> static const char foo_src_id[] = "$Id$";
I remember many years ago (when I was probably still using SCCS with its %..%
macros, and SCCS's what(1) instead of ident(1)), t
Hi Oleg,
On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 06:29:58PM +0200, Oleg Goldshmidt wrote:
...
> Now, put the above line in a C or C++ file, say foo.cc, and do the
> following:
>
> $ g++ -g -O2 foo.cc -c -o foo.o
> $ ident foo.o
> foo.o:
> $Id: foo.cc 673 2011-10-17 09:48:11Z oleg $
>
> This works up to an
Hi,
I have a gcc-related question. Problematic platform is Fedora 15 with
gcc 4.6.1, as well as Fedora 14 with gcc 4.5.1.
I am used to keeping RCS/CVS/SVN keywords (e.g., $Id$) in all my code.
In the case of C/C++ this normally amounts to
static const char foo_src_id[] = "$Id$";
in the source c
כללת שנקר ברמת גן.
> יש הודעה בעברית מתחת להודעה באנגלית.
>
> The [http://tel.foss.org.il/ Tel Aviv Open Source Club] will host
> [http://wiki.osdc.org.il/index.php/Tel_Aviv_Meeting_on_21_April_2010 the talk
> "Version Control Systems - What, Why and How"] by Yaron Meiry (Sa
ource Club] will host
[http://wiki.osdc.org.il/index.php/Tel_Aviv_Meeting_on_21_April_2010 the talk
"Version Control Systems - What, Why and How"] by Yaron Meiry (Sawyer) on
Wednesday, 21-April-2010, at 19:00 in [http://www.shenkar.ac.il/ Shenkar
College in Ramat Gan (12 Ann Frank St.)] ro
Hi all!
יש טקסט בעברית מתחת לטקסט האנגלי..
Having got a new venue in Shenkar college in Ramat Gan with better
hours (sometime between 19:00-22:00), the Tel Aviv Open Source Club is
starting the new season with a presentation about version control
systems, which is a universal topic for all
rator or the System & Software Development Laboratory (SSDL)
> in the computer science department at the Technion.
>
> I have a RHEL 4 application server. The server can be accesses via ssh from
> everywhere (meaning outside of the Technion). We would like to add 2
> add
On 24/01/07, Nadav Har'El <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, Jan 24, 2007, Shahar Dag wrote about "version control & wiki":
> 1.. Can you recommend a good implementation of version control & wiki (we
would like to use free software)
I am not aware of a version
zilla(like)+svn+wiki in one tight nice integration. When
you
start using it, everything else just stinks.
ביום רביעי 24 ינואר 2007, 11:27, נכתב על ידי Nadav Har'El:
> On Wed, Jan 24, 2007, Shahar Dag wrote about "version control & wiki":
> > 1.. Can you recommend a go
TRAC, only trac.
It integrates bugzilla(like)+svn+wiki in one tight nice integration. When you
start using it, everything else just stinks.
ביום רביעי 24 ינואר 2007, 11:27, נכתב על ידי Nadav Har'El:
> On Wed, Jan 24, 2007, Shahar Dag wrote about "version control & wiki&qu
2007/1/24, Nadav Har'El <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On Wed, Jan 24, 2007, Shahar Dag wrote about "version control & wiki":
> 1.. Can you recommend a good implementation of version control & wiki
(we would like to use free software)
I am not aware of a version contr
On Wed, Jan 24, 2007, Shahar Dag wrote about "version control & wiki":
> 1.. Can you recommend a good implementation of version control & wiki (we
> would like to use free software)
I am not aware of a version control + wiki combination (but maybe someone can
correct m
EL 4 application server. The server can be accesses via ssh from
everywhere (meaning outside of the Technion). We would like to add 2 additional
services to our users: version control (including web interface) & wiki. The
access to the new services can be from everywhere. Some of the data w
Well, ONLamp.com published an article I wrote with an overview of some
accessible open source version control systems:
http://www.onlamp.com/pub/a/onlamp/2004/01/29/scm_overview.html
As version control and Software Configuration Management was previously
discussed here, I think it would
On Wed, 2003-11-19 at 11:33, Oleg Goldshmidt wrote:
> Guy Teverovsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > It can be setup in ClearCase in 5 minutes. Create a bunch of dynamic
> > views each with it's own brunch and script the hourly/nightly builds
> > inside each view. Couple of one-liners will suffi
On Tue, 2003-11-18 at 22:00, Shachar Tal wrote:
> >
> >
> And how much did the time it took you to learn to do that, cost your
> company?
>
One 2-day course at Rational and a crash&burn accelerated "course" of
migrating Windows VOBs from NT domain to another AD domain, while
preserving all th
Guy Teverovsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It can be setup in ClearCase in 5 minutes. Create a bunch of dynamic
> views each with it's own brunch and script the hourly/nightly builds
> inside each view. Couple of one-liners will suffice.
I wasn't clear. All the work was scripting builds. No CVS
I tend to agree - in the real world there is no magic. The
advertisements might promise so but when the worker (not the manager)
gets to actually do the work - he will need the time to learn the
"promising" new system. This investment time is what the ads try to
deceive us that can be saved - b
Guy Teverovsky wrote:
On Tue, 2003-11-18 at 18:58, Oleg Goldshmidt wrote:
"Tal, Shachar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Easily doesn't mean a sysadmin for a day. Easily means not having to
invest considerable man-power into making cvs and diff and branches
and IDE integration and nightly bui
On Tue, 2003-11-18 at 18:58, Oleg Goldshmidt wrote:
> "Tal, Shachar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Easily doesn't mean a sysadmin for a day. Easily means not having to
> > invest considerable man-power into making cvs and diff and branches
> > and IDE integration and nightly building and whatn
"Tal, Shachar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Easily doesn't mean a sysadmin for a day. Easily means not having to
> invest considerable man-power into making cvs and diff and branches
> and IDE integration and nightly building and whatnot work
> together. YMMV for the definition of considerable.
November 18, 2003 5:45 PM
> To: Tal, Shachar
> Cc: 'Gilad Ben-Yossef'; Guy Teverovsky; Linux-IL mailing
> list; 'Shachar Shemesh'
> Subject: Re: Version control (was: Re: What's wrong with this code?)
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 18, 2003, Tal, Shachar wrote ab
altogether and implement your own.
Shachar Tal
Verint Systems
> -Original Message-
> From: Boaz Rymland [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 4:40 PM
> To: Linux-IL mailing list
> Subject: Re: Version control (was: Re: What's wrong with this
On Tue, Nov 18, 2003, Tal, Shachar wrote about "RE: Version control (was: Re: What's
wrong with this code?)":
> If only the small integratable single-minded tools were *easily*
> integratable, I suspect Rational would have gone of business a few years
> ago.
Why do
I suspect Rational would have gone of business a few years
ago.
Shachar Tal
Verint Systems
-Original Message-
From: Gilad Ben-Yossef [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 9:38 AM
To: Guy Teverovsky; Linux-IL mailing list
Cc: Tal, Shachar; 'Shachar Shemesh'
3 9:38 AM
> To: Guy Teverovsky; Linux-IL mailing list
> Cc: Tal, Shachar; 'Shachar Shemesh'
> Subject: Re: Version control (was: Re: What's wrong with this code?)
>
>
> On Tuesday 18 November 2003 04:22, Guy Teverovsky wrote:
>
> > CVS is not: version con
On Tuesday 18 November 2003 04:22, Guy Teverovsky wrote:
> CVS is not: version control mechanism which is content aware and action
> driven. It lacks inline documentation features and code maintenance
> (bugs, features) tracking...
Actually, CVS is a version control system and *
ce code can do what a
> "state of the art" instance of proprietary "software configuration"
> tool can do? Wait... I use CVS at work... ;-)
I am not a Rational/IBM employee. I just love the app.
CVS is not: version control mechanism which is content aware and action
d
59 matches
Mail list logo
