From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 98174 invoked by alias); 30 Jun 2015 14:43:32 -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 98163 invoked by uid 89); 30 Jun 2015 14:43:32 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mail-wi0-f179.google.com Received: from mail-wi0-f179.google.com (HELO mail-wi0-f179.google.com) (209.85.212.179) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-GCM-SHA256 encrypted) ESMTPS; Tue, 30 Jun 2015 14:43:31 +0000 Received: by wiar9 with SMTP id r9so38909270wia.1 for ; Tue, 30 Jun 2015 07:43:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.194.178.99 with SMTP id cx3mr27653459wjc.33.1435675408662; Tue, 30 Jun 2015 07:43:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [172.26.0.171] (mallba9.lcc.uma.es. [150.214.214.24]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id u7sm17375451wif.3.2015.06.30.07.43.27 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 30 Jun 2015 07:43:28 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <5592AB0D.5000501@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 14:48:00 -0000 From: =?windows-1252?Q?Manuel_L=F3pez-Ib=E1=F1ez?= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dhole <"dhole@openmailbox.org">, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Allow embedded timestamps by C/C++ macros to be set externally References: <55929721.4020400@openmailbox.org> In-Reply-To: <55929721.4020400@openmailbox.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2015-06/txt/msg02229.txt.bz2 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 relevant discussion), why not simply redefine __DATE__ and __TIME__ to an appropriate string via the command-line or a dummy include? That probably triggers some warnings (or it may not be supported at all, I haven't tried myself), but fixing those issues leads to a more general solution than GCC reacting to an arbitrary variable name and changing its behaviour quite silently. Cheers, Manuel.