From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 105124 invoked by alias); 5 May 2016 01:50:30 -0000 Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Received: (qmail 104343 invoked by uid 89); 5 May 2016 01:50:27 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=4.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_50,FREEMAIL_FROM,KAM_THEBAT,SPF_SOFTFAIL autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy=H*UA:Bat!, H*x:Bat!, bases, H*r:sk:postmas X-HELO: smtp.ht-systems.ru Received: from smtp.ht-systems.ru (HELO smtp.ht-systems.ru) (78.110.50.177) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Thu, 05 May 2016 01:50:18 +0000 Received: from [95.165.144.62] (helo=darkdragon.lan) by smtp.ht-systems.ru with esmtpa (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) (Authenticated sender: postmaster@rootdir.org) id 1ay8Qe-0005Gs-Oe ; Thu, 05 May 2016 04:50:12 +0300 Received: from [192.168.1.10] (HELO daemon2.darkdragon.lan) by daemon2 (Office Mail Server 0.8.12 build 08053101) with SMTP; Thu, 05 May 2016 01:37:26 -0000 Date: Thu, 05 May 2016 01:50:00 -0000 From: Andrey Repin Reply-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Message-ID: <139590677.20160505043725@yandex.ru> To: Ken Brown , cygwin@cygwin.com Subject: Re: Deterministic builds In-Reply-To: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2016-05/txt/msg00052.txt.bz2 Greetings, Ken Brown! > Is it possible to build an executable on Cygwin so that subsequent > builds (with no change in source) produce identical results? General answer is "no". It is possible to build a consistent object binary, but executable linked from it will be different on different systems, for various reasons. > Currently, > the timestamp embedded in executables prevents this. (I don't know if > that's the only obstacle.) Timestamps are the least of your issues. Think of things like stack allocation bases. > My actual use case is that I'm building a package that produces a large > number of executables. If I make a change in one source file, I'd like > to be able to know which executables change. If your interest is purely self-educational, you can limit the noise on a particular given system. But I wouldn't try to make any universal claims if I were you. -- With best regards, Andrey Repin Thursday, May 5, 2016 04:32:14 Sorry for my terrible english... -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple