From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:42184) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1W35HH-0004Oy-Rb for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 14 Jan 2014 09:47:48 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1W35H9-00087v-7v for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 14 Jan 2014 09:47:39 -0500 Received: from mail-qe0-x22f.google.com ([2607:f8b0:400d:c02::22f]:59243) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1W35H9-00087r-2z for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 14 Jan 2014 09:47:31 -0500 Received: by mail-qe0-f47.google.com with SMTP id 5so8390977qeb.20 for ; Tue, 14 Jan 2014 06:47:30 -0800 (PST) Sender: Richard Henderson Message-ID: <52D54DFE.9090605@twiddle.net> Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2014 06:47:26 -0800 From: Richard Henderson MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1389632394-10130-1-git-send-email-pbonzini@redhat.com> <1389632394-10130-7-git-send-email-pbonzini@redhat.com> <52D4658E.10203@twiddle.net> <20140114030658.GB9212@T430.nay.redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <20140114030658.GB9212@T430.nay.redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v15 6/9] module: implement module loading List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Fam Zheng Cc: peter.maydell@linaro.org, mjt@tls.msk.ru, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, alex@alex.org.uk, Paolo Bonzini , mrezanin@redhat.com, vilanova@ac.upc.edu On 01/13/2014 07:06 PM, Fam Zheng wrote: > On Mon, 01/13 14:15, Richard Henderson wrote: >> On 01/13/2014 08:59 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote: >>> +echo "CONFIG_STAMP=`date +%s`_$$_$RANDOM" >> $config_host_mak >> >> I really really don't like random numbers that make for non-repeatable builds. >> It's a quality-assurance nightmare. > > Can you elaborate this, please? Build systems like we use at Red Hat want to be able to produce bit-for-bit identical binaries when given the exact same input. Using random numbers during the build process prevents that. >> and perhaps a file containing that hash created by scripts/make-release. > > What if the source code is not in a git tree, for example a tarball? You just quoted my answer to that. Alternately, take a page from gcc and produce a number from a hash of the relevant object file(s). r~