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 11/17/2015 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
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
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 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
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
Also, this environment variable needs documenting in cppenv.texi.
--
Joseph S. Myers
jos...@codesourcery.com
Hi!
A while back I submitted a patch to the gcc-patches mailing list
to allow the embedded timestamps by C/C++ macros to be set externally
[0]. The attached patch addresses a comment from Joseph Myers : move the getenv calls into the gcc/ directory;
and it also provides better organization and
On 06/30/2015 06:23 PM, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
On 30 June 2015 at 17:18, Dhole dh...@openmailbox.org 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
Hi!
We are working in Debian —and I know other free software projects
care— in providing our users with a way to reproduce bit-for-bit
identical binary packages from the source and build environment.
See https://wiki.debian.org/ReproducibleBuilds/About for some
rationale and further explanations.
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
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
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 appropriate
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 Jun 30, 2015, at 10:38 AM, Martin Sebor mse...@gmail.com 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
On 30 June 2015 at 17:18, Dhole dh...@openmailbox.org 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
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.
18 matches
Mail list logo