On 16-05-24 12:06:48, James Clarke wrote:
> Hi,
> > On 24 May 2016, at 11:59, Dhole wrote:
> >
> > Hey!
> >
> > I'm the original author of the SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH patch.
> >
> > I've just seen this. I believe that this bug was fixed in
;s:
-2: no yet set
-1: disabled
non-negative: use use this value SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-05/msg01026.html
Cheers,
--
Dhole
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
PING
--
Dhole
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On 16-05-12 11:16:57, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> On 05/12/2016 02:36 AM, Dhole wrote:
> >+ error_at (input_location, "environment variable SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH
> >must "
> >+"expand to a non-negative integer less than or equal to %wd&quo
once computed, and maybe add a testcase that the error is printed only once
> (once we have the dejagnu machinery).
>
> The callback could potentially be NULL, right, if this isn't called from one
> of the C frontends? Best to check for that as well.
I've added the pfile->s
e
> >execution? dg-set-compiler-env-var ?
>
> Maybe. Eduard, can you look into that?
Yes! I'll look into that and share it here once I have something :)
BTW: review on my patch addressig several comments from this tread is
very welcome:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-05/
999 23:59:59 UTC", which is the latest date that __DATE__ and
> > + __TIME__ can store. */
> > +#define MAX_SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH 253402300799
>
> This is bigger than INT_MAX, doesn't it trigger a warning that breaks
> bootstrap?
Sorry but I don't understand the issue. Is defining a macro to a
integer bigger than INT_MAX invalid?
--
Dhole
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
message to the thread with the patch
implementing the other mentioned issues. I've mistakenly sent it from
another email account of mine:
Cheers,
--
Dhole
/* { dg-do run } */
/* { dg-set-target-env-var SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH "123456" } */
int
main(void)
{
__builtin_printf
ment that, but I can't manage to
reproduce the false positive from the link. Maybe the test code I'm
using compiles too fast. I'm not familiar with -fcompare-debug either.
Could you provide me some code with instructions to reproduce this false
positive, to see if my patch is wo
tcase; first I need to get
familiar with the testing framework and learn how to set environment
variables in tests. Any tips on that will be really welcome!
Also, I'll take a look at the -fcompare-debug, see what's the best way
to get the same __TIME__ and __DATE__ with the help of
SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH.
[1] https://reproducible-builds.org/specs/source-date-epoch/
[2] https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-06/msg02270.html
Cheers,
--
Dhole
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
k the general
> principle of no capitalization probably applies, so "No", "Trailing", and
> "Value" should be lowercase.
Done.
> >+ time_t source_date_epoch = (time_t) -1;
> >+
> >+ source_date_epoch = get_source_date_epoch ();
>
&g
Hi Bernd,
On 16-04-25 12:15:50, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> On 04/18/2016 02:26 PM, Dhole wrote:
> >A few months ago I submited a patch to allow the embedded timestamps by
> >C/C++ macros to be set externally [2], which was already an improvement
> >over [1]. I was told to wait
ight assignment process :)
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-06/msg02210.html
[2] https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-11/msg01890.html
[3] https://wiki.debian.org/ReproducibleBuilds/TimestampsFromCPPMacros
[4] https://reproducible-builds.org/specs/source-date-epoch/
Best regards,
--
Hi,
The copyright assignment process is now complete :)
Let me know if I'm required to do anything else regarding the patch I sent.
Best regards,
Dhole
On 11/19/2015 04:35 PM, Dhole wrote:
> On 11/17/2015 12:26 AM, Joseph Myers wrote:
>> fprintf to stderr is never appropriate. All diagnostics should go through
>> a diagnostic function that properly causes the message to be translated.
>>
>> If you want a fatal er
in cppenv.texi.
I have added the documentation as required, it's included in the
attached patch.
Regarding the copyright assignment process, it's in progress :)
Best regards,
Dhole
gcc/c-family/ChangeLog:
2015-11-18 Eduard Sanou
Matthias Klose
* c-common.c (get
On 11/16/2015 02:05 PM, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> On 11/15/2015 11:14 PM, Dhole wrote:
>> gcc/c-family/ChangeLog:
>>
>> 2015-10-10 Eduard Sanou
>
> I can't find a previous change from you in the sources, so the first
> question would be whether you've gone th
ot;) to report the
errors.
[0] https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-06/msg02210.html
[1] https://wiki.debian.org/ReproducibleBuilds/TimestampsFromCPPMacros
[2] https://reproducible-builds.org/specs/source-date-epoch/
Best regards,
Dhole
gcc/c-family/ChangeLog:
2015-10-10 Eduard Sanou
Ma
On 06/30/2015 06:23 PM, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
> On 30 June 2015 at 17:18, Dhole wrote:
>> In the debian reproducible builds project we have considered several
>> options to address this issue. We considered redefining the __DATE__ and
>> __TIME__ defines by command lin
, you should be aware of point 10 here:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/Community (You only need to convince the
> decision-makers). I'm not one of them ;)
Thanks for the tip!
[1] https://www.gnu.org/software/help2man/
Best regards,
Dhole
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
rg/ReproducibleBuilds/TimestampsFromCPPMacros
Best regards,
Dhole
diff --git a/libcpp/macro.c b/libcpp/macro.c
index 1e0a0b5..a52e3cb 100644
--- a/libcpp/macro.c
+++ b/libcpp/macro.c
@@ -349,14 +349,38 @@ _cpp_builtin_macro_text (cpp_reader *pfile, cpp_hashnode
*node)
slow on some systems.
21 matches
Mail list logo
