https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92717
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92717
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Liska :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f4239581925d6a9fba049f8f771e909a7a5e5ce7
commit r10-6442-gf4239581925d6a9fba049f8f771e909a7a5e5ce7
Author: Martin Liska
Date: Wed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92717
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||documentation
Status|UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92717
--- Comment #8 from Markus Dreseler ---
Interesting. Is this implementation documented somewhere?
I can confirm that disabling ASLR results in reproducible gchs:
# setarch $(uname -m) -R /usr/bin/c++ -x c++-header -include test.hxx -o
test.hxx.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92717
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #6)
> Well, pch files essentially contain a memory dump of GCCs internal state so
> I very much expect differences for example when address-space randomization
> is tu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92717
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
Well, pch files essentially contain a memory dump of GCCs internal state so I
very much expect differences for example when address-space randomization is
turned on.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92717
--- Comment #5 from Markus Dreseler ---
I took Andrew's __DATE__ suggestion as a reason to look at how much the files
actually differ. `cmp -l v1 v2 | wc -l` gives me 692634 differing bytes. This
sounds like the difference is bigger than just som
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92717
--- Comment #4 from Markus Dreseler ---
> By any chance, is your cc1plus built as PIE? PCH doesn't work in that case.
I don't think so:
# file `find /usr -name cc1plus`
/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-linux-gnu/9/cc1plus: ELF 64-bit LSB executable, x86-64
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92717
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92717
--- Comment #2 from Markus Dreseler ---
> Try using __DATE__ macro and you will see it is not :).
Can't confirm:
# /usr/bin/c++ -D__DATE__=0 -D__TIMESTAMP__=0 -D__TIME__=0 -x c++-header
-include test.hxx -o test.hxx.gch -c test.hxx.cxx && md5su
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92717
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
I don't think this is a bug, __DATE__ is one of the predefined macros and I
think it is included in GCC's precompiled headers.
Really ccache is broken anyways.
>As builds of regular C(++) files are determin
11 matches
Mail list logo
