On 2015-08-23 20:13, Jérémy Bobbio wrote: > Aurelien Jarno: > > I have just applied the part concerning point 1. For the 2 other points, > > from what I have understood there are now patches for gcc to define > > __DATE__ and __TIME__. So the question is should we still want to get > > this changes in the glibc? In that case I would try to get these patches > > upstream. > > It's still unclear if GCC upstream will accept support for setting > predefined values to __DATE__ and __TIME__. As we are currently lacking > feedback on the patch that was submitted, waiting would make sense.
Note that point 2 has actually been fixed upstream in the following commit: | commit 5006148ee57c80a787b275c04587678e9fe0a3f3 | Author: Roland McGrath <rol...@hack.frob.com> | Date: Fri Mar 14 16:05:10 2014 -0700 | | Remove "Compiled on ..." crapola from version text. It means that the point 3 (usage of __DATE__ and __TIME__) is the only one left to address in the version currently in experimental. -- Aurelien Jarno GPG: 4096R/1DDD8C9B aurel...@aurel32.net http://www.aurel32.net
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
