From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 118827 invoked by alias); 3 May 2016 14:53:01 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 116512 invoked by uid 89); 3 May 2016 14:53:01 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-0.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KAM_MXURI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy= X-HELO: mail.ud10.udmedia.de Received: from ud10.udmedia.de (HELO mail.ud10.udmedia.de) (194.117.254.50) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Tue, 03 May 2016 14:52:51 +0000 Received: (qmail 14883 invoked from network); 3 May 2016 16:52:46 +0200 Received: from ip5b41f88a.dynamic.kabel-deutschland.de (HELO x4) (ud10?360p3@91.65.248.138) by mail.ud10.udmedia.de with ESMTPSA (ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted, authenticated); 3 May 2016 16:52:46 +0200 Date: Tue, 03 May 2016 14:53:00 -0000 From: Markus Trippelsdorf To: Dhole Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: Allow embedded timestamps by C/C++ macros to be set externally (3) Message-ID: <20160503145246.GA310@x4> References: <20160418122636.GR3248@panther> <20160418130458.GA313@x4> <20160503144241.GP21574@panther> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160503144241.GP21574@panther> X-SW-Source: 2016-05/txt/msg00228.txt.bz2 On 2016.05.03 at 16:42 +0200, Dhole wrote: > On 16-04-18 15:04:58, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote: > > A nice follow-up patch would be to set SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH to the current > > time during -fcompare-debug. This would avoid false positives like: > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70679 > > I've been working on a patch to implement 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 working as expected? Just building LLVM is enough: markus@x4 llvm_build % time g++ -fcompare-debug -DGTEST_HAS_RTTI=0 -D_DEBUG -D_GNU_SOURCE -D__STDC_CONSTANT_MACROS -D__STDC_FORMAT_MACROS -D__STDC_LIMIT_MACROS -fPIC -fvisibility-inlines-hidden -Wall -W -Wno-unused-parameter -Wwrite-strings -Wcast-qual -Wno-missing-field-initializers -pedantic -Wno-long-long -Wno-maybe-uninitialized -Wdelete-non-virtual-dtor -Wno-comment -std=c++11 -O2 -pipe -Ilib/Support -I/home/trippels/llvm/lib/Support -Iinclude -I/home/trippels/llvm/include -UNDEBUG -fno-exceptions -fno-rtti -MMD -MT lib/Support/CMakeFiles/LLVMSupport.dir/CommandLine.cpp.o -MF lib/Support/CMakeFiles/LLVMSupport.dir/CommandLine.cpp.o.d -o lib/Support/CMakeFiles/LLVMSupport.dir/CommandLine.cpp.o -c /home/markus/llvm/lib/Support/CommandLine.cpp g++: error: /home/markus/llvm/lib/Support/CommandLine.cpp: -fcompare-debug failure g++ -fcompare-debug -DGTEST_HAS_RTTI=0 -D_DEBUG -D_GNU_SOURCE -fPIC -Wall 5.71s user 0.26s system 101% cpu 5.904 total -- Markus