Re: Bit-reproduciblity issue for gfortran .mod files

[Janne Blomqvist <blomqvist.janne@gmail.com>]

On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 8:55 AM, Alastair McKinstry
<alastair.mckinstry@sceal.ie> wrote:
>
>>>> So while reproducible builds are important and this is a good catch,
>>>> your patch as-is is not really usable. But luckily gcc includes a copy
>>>> of libiberty, including lbasename(). That function seems to be used by
>>>> other frontends, so I'd suggest using that instead.
>>> Thanks, I hadn't heard of lbasename(). I've just tested it and it works.
>>> No header inclusion needed.
>> This is Ok for trunk with a proper ChangeLog entry. Since it's
>> effectively a change in a comment I think we can dispense with nagging
>> the release managers, even though we're in stage 4.
>>
>> Do you, or anybody else, have any particular opinion on whether it
>> should be backported to older release branches?
>>
>> Do you have commit access, or do you need somebody to do it for you?
>>
> I have no opinion on whether it should be backported; there is a patch
> for it in Debian at the moment; it would help reproducible builds
> elsewhere (eg OpenSUSE have a reproducible builds project too).
>
> I don't have commit access.

Hi,

here's the patch I tested and committed:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-02/msg00706.html

Committed to trunk as r257613, gcc-7 branch as r257614, and gcc-6
branch as r257615.

Thanks for bringing up this issue!

-- 
Janne Blomqvist