On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 03:50:53PM -0700, Dan Nicholson wrote:
> On 7/30/07, Ken Moffat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > And moving on to farce test results ("how repeatable is it?") -
> > apart from cc1 and cc1plus I also had a failure in libc-2.5.so (not
> > yet investigated) and in private mail from archaic I know he saw a
> > failure in nscd (I've got his files for this, but haven't investigated
> > it yet).
>
> libc.so and nscd both embed the build date.
>
> $ strings /lib/libc.so.6 | grep 2007
> Compiled on a Linux >>2.6.20.14-1<< system on 2007-07-15.
> $ strings /usr/sbin/nscd | grep 2007
> Jul 15 2007 08:44:08
>
> Although, I though farce tried to strip out the dates, so maybe it's
> something worse. If you want to be sure about the nscd one, you can
> just blow away the __DATE__ and __TIME__ macros:
>
> sed -i.bak \
> -e 's/__DATE__/"today"/' \
> -e 's/__TIME__/"now"/' nscd/nscd_stat.c
>
Sorry, I missed this part of your reply. Farce does indeed replace
known date/time patterns by tokens. For me, nscd builds repeatably
as far as farce is concerned.
After running 'strip --strip-all' on the binaries I got from
archaic, the second and third builds differed in a handful of bytes.
The first run appeared to include literals at a slightly different
position (only a byte or two different).
Haven't yet looked at my libc, I retested the files that were where
I thought I'd left them, but those matched up. In general, with old
toolchains it was quite easy to account for much of the variation.
Nowadays, I see a lot of things that just differ. I'll try to get
back to it after I've finished playing with gcc-4.2.0 x86_64 on
multilib xorg-server [ don't try this at home unless you've got at
least 2GB of memory/swap and a lot of time - 4.2.1 reportedly fixes
that problem ].
ĸen
--
das eine Mal als Tragödie, das andere Mal als Farce
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
