[llvm-dev] RFC: Should the default LLVM build be deterministic?

[Chris Bieneman via llvm-dev]

The responses here are pretty one-sided.

What I’m going to do is make a commit to LLVM this afternoon to change the default for LLVM_ENABLE_TIMESTAMPS to Off. Separately I will send out a patch for review that removes the flag.

I will let that patch sit out on LLVM-Commits for a day or so to allow anyone who objects to the removal of the option to speak up.

Any objections?

-Chris

> On May 3, 2016, at 1:11 PM, Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 8:57 AM, Chris Bieneman via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote:
> Hello LLVM-Dev,
> 
> Today if a user checks out LLVM, configures with no options specified, and builds the result is non-deterministic. Meaning if you clean and build again the binaries are not identical. This impacts all target platforms equally and is caused by the default value of LLVM_ENABLE_TIMESTAMPS being On.
> 
> I believe this is incorrect behavior, and I’m curious what the wider community thinks.
> 
> It is my belief that the default LLVM configuration (meaning no options specified) should be deterministic, and that any option in our build/configuration system that can impact determinism should be disabled by default.
> 
> I would like to hold this as a central requirement for build system changes.
> 
> +1 for determinism
> 
> -- Sean Silva
>  
> 
> Thoughts?
> -Chris
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev <http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev>
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160503/f01ada02/attachment-0001.html>