Re: compiler info in kernel identification string

on 16/11/2012 11:20 Erik Cederstrand said the following:
> Den 16/11/2012 kl. 08.34 skrev Andriy Gapon <avg_at_freebsd.org>:
> 
>> on 16/11/2012 01:09 Dimitry Andric said the following:
>>> And as I remarked in another reply, now that I have thought about it a 
>>> bit, I would much rather see this information moved to a sysctl or dmesg 
>>> line, than in uname.  With the happy side effect that no existing uname 
>>> parsers would be confused!
>> 
>> I would still like to have at least compiler's "base name" or type or
>> something in uname.
> 
> This has been brought up before, but what about putting all this in a
> separate file, e.g. /etc/buildinfo?

There is a chance this file could be out of sync with kernel.

> At least I'd like this to be configurable. I'm trying to get FreeBSD code in
> a shape where it can optionally produce deterministic binaries from two

This is a very good goal.  I also would like to see it achieved.

> different builds (i.e. comparable with md5) as long as the binaries are
> functionally equivalent, and "irrelevant" info like compiler version,

I agree about the following items, but not about compilers / compiler versions.
Different compilers can (and do) produce different binaries already (and
sometimes bugs).
While, indeed, time of compilation should not affect the binaries (unless the
phase of the Moon plays a role).

> hostname, username, timestamp, absolute path etc. are a nuisance if they
> can't be turned off with -fno-ident, -frandom-seed, -DSTRIP_FBSDID, ar -D and
> the like.

-- 
Andriy Gapon