On 16-05-06 08:26:07, Andreas Schwab wrote: > Eduard Sanou <eduardsa...@openmailbox.org> writes: > > > diff --git a/gcc/c-family/c-common.h b/gcc/c-family/c-common.h > > index 1714284..dea2900 100644 > > --- a/gcc/c-family/c-common.h > > +++ b/gcc/c-family/c-common.h > > @@ -1086,6 +1086,16 @@ extern vec<tree, va_gc> *make_tree_vector_copy > > (const vec<tree, va_gc> *); > > c_register_builtin_type. */ > > extern GTY(()) tree registered_builtin_types; > > > > +/* Read SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH from environment to have a deterministic > > + timestamp to replace embedded current dates to get reproducible > > + results. Returns -1 if SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH is not defined. */ > > +extern time_t cb_get_source_date_epoch (cpp_reader *pfile); > > + > > +/* The value (as a unix timestamp) corresponds to date > > + "Dec 31 9999 23:59:59 UTC", which is the latest date that __DATE__ and > > + __TIME__ can store. */ > > +#define MAX_SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH 253402300799 > > This is bigger than INT_MAX, doesn't it trigger a warning that breaks > bootstrap?
Sorry but I don't understand the issue. Is defining a macro to a integer bigger than INT_MAX invalid? -- Dhole
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
