On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 7:37 AM, Tom Tromey wrote:
>> "Tobias" == Tobias Burnus writes:
>
> Tobias> + cpp_warning (pfile, CPP_W_DATE_TIME, "Macro \"%s\" might
> prevent "
> Tobias> + "reproduce builds", NODE_NAME (node));
>
> Tobias> + cpp_warning (pfile, CP
> "Tobias" == Tobias Burnus writes:
Tobias> Updated version attached – after bootstrapping and regtesting on
Tobias> x86-64-gnu-linux
Tobias> OK?
Sorry, I didn't notice this until today.
Tobias> @@ -925,7 +928,8 @@ enum {
Tobias>CPP_W_NORMALIZE,
Tobias>CPP_W_INVALID_PCH,
Tobias>
On Mon, Nov 04, 2013 at 09:58:30PM +0100, Tobias Burnus wrote:
> Tobias Burnus wrote:
> > Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> >> To make it easier to reproduce builds of software and entire GNU/Linux
> >> distributions, RMS had the idea of adding a warning to GCC that warns
> >> about the use of __DATE__ and _
On 4 November 2013 22:26, Andreas Schwab wrote:
>
>> The undefined behaviour study group of the C++ committee are
>> considering making it ill-formed, which would require a diagnostic.
>
> That still wouldn't cover command line arguments.
Ah yes, as it would still be predefined, but to the value g
The warning should say "macro" not "Macro" and I think "reproducing" not
"reproduce". The c-family and libcpp changes are OK with that fixed.
--
Joseph S. Myers
jos...@codesourcery.com
On Mon, 4 Nov 2013, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 28 October 2013 21:13, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>> I don't have any strong objection, but I'll note that it's even easier
>> to use -D options.
>>
>> CC='gcc -D__DATE__=today'
> It's undefined behaviour in both C and C++ to redefine pre-defined
> macro
On 28 October 2013 21:13, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 12:04 PM, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
>> To make it easier to reproduce builds of software and entire GNU/Linux
>> distributions, RMS had the idea of adding a warning to GCC that warns
>> about the use of __DATE__ and __TIME__.
Tobias Burnus wrote:
Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
To make it easier to reproduce builds of software and entire GNU/Linux
distributions, RMS had the idea of adding a warning to GCC that warns
about the use of __DATE__ and __TIME__.
I assume that he also likes to have a warning for __TIMESTAMP__.
I w
On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 12:04 PM, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> To make it easier to reproduce builds of software and entire GNU/Linux
> distributions, RMS had the idea of adding a warning to GCC that warns
> about the use of __DATE__ and __TIME__.
>
> Short of "interesting" changes to the environment o
On Mon, 28 Oct 2013, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
> Gerald Pfeifer writes:
>
> > To make it easier to reproduce builds of software and entire GNU/Linux
> > distributions, RMS had the idea of adding a warning to GCC that warns
> > about the use of __DATE__ and __TIME__. [...]
>
> How about instead
On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 09:10:08AM -0400, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
> Gerald Pfeifer writes:
>
> > To make it easier to reproduce builds of software and entire GNU/Linux
> > distributions, RMS had the idea of adding a warning to GCC that warns
> > about the use of __DATE__ and __TIME__. [...]
>
On Sun, 27 Oct 2013, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> In addition to Andreas' comments, can you please make this "@code{__TIME__},
> @code{__DATE__}, or @code{__TIMESTAP__}"
> and then also send to gcc-patches@
TIMESTAMP, not TIMESTAP.
--
Joseph S. Myers
jos...@codesourcery.com
Gerald Pfeifer writes:
> To make it easier to reproduce builds of software and entire GNU/Linux
> distributions, RMS had the idea of adding a warning to GCC that warns
> about the use of __DATE__ and __TIME__. [...]
How about instead adding a --time=X option to gcc (cpp?) instead,
so that
> as soon as a program uses __DATE__ or __TIME__ at least once, builds of the
> program will differ for that reason alone.
Indeed. But I don’t really see the point of a warning: it’s not the sort of
feature you use and then accidentaly discover that they have unintended
side-effect; it’s actual
On Sun, 27 Oct 2013, Tobias Burnus wrote:
I assume that he also likes to have a warning for __TIMESTAMP__.
So do I, but I asked to be sure.
Do you mean something like the attached patch? (Only lightly tested.)
Yep! Thanks.
+@item -Wdate-time
+@opindex Wdate-time
+@opindex Wno-date-time
Tobias Burnus writes:
> diff --git a/gcc/c-family/c.opt b/gcc/c-family/c.opt
> index 22f8939..f765018 100644
> --- a/gcc/c-family/c.opt
> +++ b/gcc/c-family/c.opt
> @@ -640,6 +640,10 @@ Wpragmas
> C ObjC C++ ObjC++ Var(warn_pragmas) Init(1) Warning
> Warn about misuses of pragmas
>
> +Wdate-t
Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
To make it easier to reproduce builds of software and entire GNU/Linux
distributions, RMS had the idea of adding a warning to GCC that warns
about the use of __DATE__ and __TIME__.
I assume that he also likes to have a warning for __TIMESTAMP__.
I was thinking a new warn
To make it easier to reproduce builds of software and entire GNU/Linux
distributions, RMS had the idea of adding a warning to GCC that warns
about the use of __DATE__ and __TIME__.
Short of "interesting" changes to the environment or #defining these
two, as soon as a program uses __DATE__ or __T
18 matches
Mail list logo
