Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2006 00:05:00 -0700 From: Colin Percival <cperciva@freebsd.org> To: Andrey Chernov <ache@freebsd.org>, Colin Percival <cperciva@FreeBSD.ORG>, src-committers@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-src@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/usr.sbin/named Makefile Message-ID: <44DECF1C.3080606@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <20060813055947.GA9508@nagual.pp.ru> References: <200608130532.k7D5WA6g040164@repoman.freebsd.org> <20060813055947.GA9508@nagual.pp.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Andrey Chernov wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 13, 2006 at 05:32:10AM +0000, Colin Percival wrote:
>> cperciva 2006-08-13 05:32:10 UTC
>>
>> FreeBSD src repository
>>
>> Modified files:
>> usr.sbin/named Makefile
>> Log:
>> Undefine __DATE__ in order to avoid placing a build timestamp into
>> /usr/sbin/{named, lwresd}. Note that POSIX / C99 doesn't technically
>> allow __DATE__ to be (un|re)defined, but gcc does what we mean anyway.
>
> There is a warning. Probably it can interfere with future warn level
> increasing. What about _re_defining date, say, to the date of named
> import?
Redefining __DATE__ produces a similar warning:
<command line>:12:1: warning: "__DATE__" redefined
AFAIK the only way to do this while avoiding warning entirely would be to
edit the source code directly to remove reference to __DATE__, but this
would involve either taking named.c off the vendor branch or convincing
the authors of BIND to adopt the change.
Colin Percival
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?44DECF1C.3080606>