Hm. That might be a nice balance, and it’s not entirely a lie: that’s the version of the compiler that you’re using, if not the stdlib and runtime. I’d still like to put it behind a flag, so that we can turn it off it certain configurations, like #2105 <https://github.com/apple/swift/pull/2105> attempted to do.
Dmitri, any comments, since you caught the issue last time? Jordan > On May 5, 2016, at 21:12, rintaro ishizaki <fs.out...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Sorry, accidentally clicked send button.. > > I've wrote PoC code here: > https://github.com/rintaro/swift/commit/9bf18d46f4933ace03948417087bade084104edb > > <https://github.com/rintaro/swift/commit/9bf18d46f4933ace03948417087bade084104edb> > > Of course, this changes the semantics of `--version` output. > So I'm not sure we can accept this or not. > Any thought? > > Rintaro > > 2016-05-06 13:08 GMT+09:00 rintaro ishizaki <fs.out...@gmail.com > <mailto:fs.out...@gmail.com>>: > Hi all, > > getSwiftFullVersion output must take account stdlib revsion? > > How about get the revision hash from the Swift repository > *excluding* stdlib/, test/ and validation-test/ directories. > > git log -1 --pretty=format:%H -- \ > . \ > :(exclude)stdlib \ > :(exclude)test \ > :(exclude)validation-test > > Instead of, > > git log -1 --pretty=format:%H > > Or more specifically, just include only "compiler" related directories: > > git log -1 --pretty=format:%H -- include/ lib/ tools/ > > I've wrote PoC code > > > 2016-04-12 2:22 GMT+09:00 Jordan Rose via swift-dev <swift-dev@swift.org > <mailto:swift-dev@swift.org>>: > >> On Apr 7, 2016, at 14:01, Chris Lattner <clatt...@apple.com >> <mailto:clatt...@apple.com>> wrote: >> >> >>> On Apr 6, 2016, at 11:08 AM, Jordan Rose via swift-dev <swift-dev@swift.org >>> <mailto:swift-dev@swift.org>> wrote: >>> >>> I imagine it's because your git hash has changed, which is used in the >>> --version output for swiftc. I'm not sure how to avoid that cost entirely, >>> but we could add a CMake option to not do it (which you could set locally), >>> and we could probably move it to a library that isn't used by most of those >>> tools (so that we're only re-linking swiftc). >> >> Could we move the hash to be a text file stored next to the executables in >> the installdir? That way the text file gets updated, but not the binaries? > > Oh, that's clever. Maybe that's good enough for local builds. I'd want to be > careful about it for the binary we ship (to not waste an fstat). > > FWIW this isn't quite just --version output; we also stamp it into > swiftmodule files. But any build with an actual submission tag will use that > instead. > > Jordan > > > _______________________________________________ > swift-dev mailing list > swift-dev@swift.org <mailto:swift-dev@swift.org> > https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-dev > <https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-dev> > > >
_______________________________________________ swift-dev mailing list swift-dev@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-dev
