Dhole <dh...@openmailbox.org> writes: > 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?
Did it survive bootstrap? Andreas. -- Andreas Schwab, sch...@linux-m68k.org GPG Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756 01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5 "And now for something completely different."