From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Marius Bakke Subject: Re: =?utf-8?Q?=E2=80=98core-updates=E2=80=99?= is back! Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2017 19:18:54 +0200 Message-ID: <87o9qvk64h.fsf@fastmail.com> References: <878ti3uzaz.fsf@gnu.org> <20170829084453.GJ1618@macbook42.flashner.co.il> <20170830093016.GP1618@macbook42.flashner.co.il> <87fuc8lvm5.fsf@fastmail.com> <20170830201607.GB2353@macbook42.flashner.co.il> <87a82glrlc.fsf@fastmail.com> <87y3pzokzh.fsf@gnu.org> <87tw0nk8oq.fsf@fastmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:35736) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dnT7O-0007Fs-NV for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 31 Aug 2017 13:19:03 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dnT7J-0004U9-Ni for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 31 Aug 2017 13:19:02 -0400 In-Reply-To: <87tw0nk8oq.fsf@fastmail.com> List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" To: Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= Cc: guix-devel --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Marius Bakke writes: > Ludovic Court=C3=A8s writes: > >> Marius Bakke skribis: >> >>> Efraim Flashner writes: >>> >>>> On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 09:10:42PM +0200, Marius Bakke wrote: >>>>> Since we're on the topic, I would like to switch to GCC 6 or 7 soon... >>>>> Are we agile enough to use the very latest GCC by default yet? :-) >>>> >>>> That would be nice to at least move to GCC 6. My aarch64 board is >>>> currently idle, I can see how well it works on my machine. >>> >>> The main issue with GCC 6 is that we need to port the SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH >>> patches again. But we might want to do that even if switching to 7. >> >> I think we should upgrade. My preference would be GCC 6, which I think >> may trigger fewer build failures than GCC 7, but maybe GCC 7 would be >> fine. >> >> Are you sure the SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH thing isn=E2=80=99t already in GCC 6? > > I just checked out the gcc-6_4_0-release tag and ran `git grep > SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH`. No results :/ > > However I tried cherry-picking the two commits and there was only one > trivial conflict in gcc/c-family/c-common.h (apart from ChangeLog > updates, which were omitted). Patch attached and building! It works! $ cat sde.c #include int main() { printf( "__DATE__ says: %s \n", __DATE__ ); printf( "__TIME__ says: %s \n", __TIME__ ); return 0; } $ ./pre-inst-env guix environment --pure --ad-hoc gcc@6 binutils glibc bash: tty: command not found [env]$ gcc sde.c && ./a.out __DATE__ says: Aug 31 2017=20 __TIME__ says: 17:09:07=20 [env]$ SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH=3D1 gcc sde.c && ./a.out __DATE__ says: Jan 1 1970=20 __TIME__ says: 00:00:01=20 [env]$ SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH=3D-1 gcc sde.c && ./a.out sde.c: In function 'main': sde.c:4:5: error: environment variable SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH must expand to a n= on-negative integer less than or equal to 253402300799 printf( "__DATE__ says: %s \n", __DATE__ ); ^~~~~~ \o/ --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAEBCgAdFiEEu7At3yzq9qgNHeZDoqBt8qM6VPoFAlmoRP8ACgkQoqBt8qM6 VPrk3QgAj1VUUYfU8cRJkJX8v8bzGGZqfPPuTo2cs539PyihLrM9Gu4RQo3aSEu0 1m6zOMG2mFbdnjdbF/rGMx7Sawk7spaK+iQtbfelo50Zl/8B4ZkXgfcvi2yfzXYW ShR25nyhpsGKvCx1Xx4ZHzeAyeB7+pADtvbf7K0KUMhkqa5kGQXNXHPyMTl2m/so Lj+ii0z2oqBCTR6f30ukDxpY2R292fPCGtqpW1SJohXWbwbMA2YlreN+1mY6AsHR otAr9Ub4GAKgtVxhiPDj5ni3h068l+0YqBa+I/NweYa3MRet6APBx5vu58SdmWr4 n4E4wqKJFCO5GBnSkw05F8XrtJSYbg== =jMUN -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--