On 12/14/2015 03:31 PM, Dhole wrote:
The copyright assignment process is now complete :)
Let me know if I'm required to do anything else regarding the patch I sent.
Right now we're in a bug fixing stage; please wait until stage 1 reopens
and then resend your patch.
Bernd
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 error (exit immediately after givin
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 error (exit immediately after giving the message
> rather than continuing co
Also, this environment variable needs documenting in cppenv.texi.
--
Joseph S. Myers
jos...@codesourcery.com
On Sun, 15 Nov 2015, Dhole wrote:
> The error output in gcc/c-family/c-common.c (get_source_date_epoch) is
> handled by an fprintf() to stderr followed by an exit (EXIT_FAILURE). I
> am not sure this is the right approach for error handling, as I have
> found many usages of the error() function in
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 through the copyright assignment
> process.
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 through the copyright assignment
process.
Bernd
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 line flags passed to gcc, b
Since cpplib is a library and doesn't have any existing getenv calls, I
wonder if it would be better for the cpplib client (i.e. something in the
gcc/ directory) to be what calls getenv and then informs cpplib of the
timestamp it should treat as being the time of compilation.
--
Joseph S. Myer
On Jun 30, 2015, at 10:38 AM, Martin Sebor 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 line flags passed to gcc, but as you say,
>> that triggers warnings,
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 line flags passed to gcc, but as you say,
that triggers warnings, which could become errors when building with
-Werror and thus
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 line flags passed to gcc, but as you say,
> that triggers warnings, which could bec
On 06/30/2015 04:48 PM, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
> On 30/06/15 16:43, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
>> Perhaps this has been discussed and discarded before (if so I would
>> appreciate
>> if you could point me to the relevant discussion), why not simply
>> redefine
>> __DATE__ and __TIME__ to an app
On 30/06/15 16:43, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
On 30/06/15 15:18, Dhole wrote:
A solution for toolchain packages that embed timestamps during the build
process has been proposed for anyone interested and it consists of the
following:
Perhaps this has been discussed and discarded before (if so I
On 30/06/15 15:18, Dhole wrote:
A solution for toolchain packages that embed timestamps during the build
process has been proposed for anyone interested and it consists of the
following:
Perhaps this has been discussed and discarded before (if so I would appreciate
if you could point me to the
16 matches
Mail list logo
