Make __DATE__, __TIME__ and __TIMESTAMP__ to evaluate to an empty string.

Make __DATE__, __TIME__ and __TIMESTAMP__ to evaluate to an empty string.

If __DATE__, __TIME__ or __TIMESTAMP__ used in code, current date or
time will be filled.  Such a value may change compile by compile, and
breaks deterministic build.

BUG=314403
Review-Url: https://codereview.chromium.org/2664743002
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#447769}
Committed: https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/5eded4b55c92335c96702d53aa319a360c86f556

[Yoshisato Yanagisawa, 2017-01-30 09:08:04]

yyanagisawa@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ dpranke@chromium.org, dpranke@google.com, justincohen@chromium.org,
maruel@chromium.org, rohitrao@chromium.org, thakis@chromium.org

[Yoshisato Yanagisawa, 2017-01-30 09:08:04]

Nico kindly let me know I can now reland the change:
https://codereview.chromium.org/2255093004/

Let me try to reland.

[M-A Ruel, 2017-01-30 17:07:06]

The CQ bit was checked by maruel@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-01-30 17:07:23]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 
https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/v2/patch-status/codereview.chromium.or...

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-01-30 17:07:24]

The CQ bit was unchecked by commit-bot@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-01-30 17:07:25]

No L-G-T-M from a valid reviewer yet. 
CQ run can only be started by full committers or once the patch has
received an L-G-T-M from a full committer.
Even if an L-G-T-M may have been provided, it was from a non-committer,
_not_ a full super star committer.
See http://www.chromium.org/getting-involved/become-a-committer
Note that this has nothing to do with OWNERS files.

[M-A Ruel, 2017-01-30 17:27:21]

lgtm

[M-A Ruel, 2017-01-30 17:27:29]

The CQ bit was checked by maruel@chromium.org to run a CQ dry run

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-01-30 17:28:01]

Dry run: CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 
https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/v2/patch-status/codereview.chromium.or...

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-01-30 20:58:38]

The CQ bit was unchecked by commit-bot@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-01-30 20:58:39]

Dry run: This issue passed the CQ dry run.

[Yoshisato Yanagisawa, 2017-01-31 01:06:29]

Description was changed from

==========
Make __DATE__, __TIME__ and __TIMESTAMP__ to evaluate to an empty string.

If __DATE__, __TIME__ or __TIMESTAMP__ used in code, current date or
time will be filled.  Such a value may change compile by compile, and
breaks deterministic build.

BUG=314403
==========

to

==========
Make __DATE__, __TIME__ and __TIMESTAMP__ to evaluate to an empty string.

If __DATE__, __TIME__ or __TIMESTAMP__ used in code, current date or
time will be filled.  Such a value may change compile by compile, and
breaks deterministic build.

BUG=314403
==========

[Yoshisato Yanagisawa, 2017-01-31 01:06:29]

yyanagisawa@chromium.org changed required reviewers:
+ dpranke@google.com

[Yoshisato Yanagisawa, 2017-01-31 01:07:33]

Dirk, will you take a look?  I need owner's lgtm to submit this file.

[Nico, 2017-01-31 01:27:56]

https://codereview.chromium.org/2664743002/diff/1/build/config/compiler/BUILD.gn
File build/config/compiler/BUILD.gn (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2664743002/diff/1/build/config/compiler/BUILD...
build/config/compiler/BUILD.gn:192: 
Don't we want this on Windows too?

[Dirk Pranke, 2017-01-31 01:38:32]

I defer to thakis@ here ...

[Yoshisato Yanagisawa, 2017-02-01 07:56:50]

https://codereview.chromium.org/2664743002/diff/1/build/config/compiler/BUILD.gn
File build/config/compiler/BUILD.gn (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2664743002/diff/1/build/config/compiler/BUILD...
build/config/compiler/BUILD.gn:192: 
On 2017/01/31 01:27:56, Nico wrote:
> Don't we want this on Windows too?

Done.

[Yoshisato Yanagisawa, 2017-02-01 07:57:10]

The CQ bit was checked by yyanagisawa@chromium.org to run a CQ dry run

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-02-01 07:57:26]

Dry run: CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 
https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/v2/patch-status/codereview.chromium.or...

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-02-01 08:36:56]

The CQ bit was unchecked by commit-bot@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-02-01 08:36:57]

Dry run: Try jobs failed on following builders:
  win_chromium_compile_dbg_ng on master.tryserver.chromium.win (JOB_FAILED,
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.win/builders/win_chromium_comp...)

[Yoshisato Yanagisawa, 2017-02-01 08:44:43]

The CQ bit was checked by yyanagisawa@chromium.org to run a CQ dry run

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-02-01 08:44:59]

Dry run: CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 
https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/v2/patch-status/codereview.chromium.or...

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-02-01 10:01:12]

The CQ bit was unchecked by commit-bot@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-02-01 10:01:13]

Dry run: Try jobs failed on following builders:
  win_clang on master.tryserver.chromium.win (JOB_FAILED,
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.win/builders/win_clang/builds/...)

[Yoshisato Yanagisawa, 2017-02-02 01:24:11]

The CQ bit was checked by yyanagisawa@chromium.org to run a CQ dry run

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-02-02 01:24:35]

Dry run: CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 
https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/v2/patch-status/codereview.chromium.or...

[Yoshisato Yanagisawa, 2017-02-02 03:02:24]

PTAL

[Nico, 2017-02-02 03:13:07]

LGTM!

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-02-02 05:35:17]

The CQ bit was unchecked by commit-bot@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-02-02 05:35:18]

Dry run: Try jobs failed on following builders:
  chromeos_daisy_chromium_compile_only_ng on master.tryserver.chromium.linux
(JOB_TIMED_OUT, no build URL)
  linux_chromium_asan_rel_ng on master.tryserver.chromium.linux (JOB_TIMED_OUT,
no build URL)
  linux_chromium_chromeos_ozone_rel_ng on master.tryserver.chromium.linux
(JOB_TIMED_OUT, no build URL)
  linux_chromium_chromeos_rel_ng on master.tryserver.chromium.linux
(JOB_TIMED_OUT, no build URL)
  linux_chromium_compile_dbg_ng on master.tryserver.chromium.linux
(JOB_TIMED_OUT, no build URL)
  linux_chromium_rel_ng on master.tryserver.chromium.linux (JOB_TIMED_OUT, no
build URL)
  linux_chromium_tsan_rel_ng on master.tryserver.chromium.linux (JOB_TIMED_OUT,
no build URL)

[Yoshisato Yanagisawa, 2017-02-02 07:09:21]

The CQ bit was checked by yyanagisawa@chromium.org

[Yoshisato Yanagisawa, 2017-02-02 07:09:22]

The patchset sent to the CQ was uploaded after l-g-t-m from maruel@chromium.org
Link to the patchset: https://codereview.chromium.org/2664743002/#ps60001
(title: "windows clang use the same rule with posix")

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-02-02 07:09:38]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 
https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/v2/patch-status/codereview.chromium.or...

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-02-02 07:09:39]

The CQ bit was unchecked by commit-bot@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-02-02 07:09:40]

All required reviewers (with asterisk prefixes) have not yet approved this CL.

No L-G-T-M from a valid reviewer yet. 
CQ run can only be started by full committers or once the patch has
received an L-G-T-M from a full committer.
Even if an L-G-T-M may have been provided, it was from a non-committer,
_not_ a full super star committer.
See http://www.chromium.org/getting-involved/become-a-committer
Note that this has nothing to do with OWNERS files.

[M-A Ruel, 2017-02-02 15:09:21]

maruel@chromium.org changed reviewers:
- dpranke@google.com

[M-A Ruel, 2017-02-02 15:09:21]

maruel@chromium.org changed required reviewers:
- dpranke@google.com

[M-A Ruel, 2017-02-02 15:09:45]

On 2017/02/02 07:09:40, commit-bot: I haz the power wrote:
> All required reviewers (with asterisk prefixes) have not yet approved this CL.
> 
> No L-G-T-M from a valid reviewer yet. 
> CQ run can only be started by full committers or once the patch has
> received an L-G-T-M from a full committer.
> Even if an L-G-T-M may have been provided, it was from a non-committer,
> _not_ a full super star committer.
> See http://www.chromium.org/getting-involved/become-a-committer
> Note that this has nothing to do with OWNERS files.

Removed Dirk from reviewers list, CQ'ing.

[M-A Ruel, 2017-02-02 15:09:51]

The CQ bit was checked by maruel@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-02-02 15:10:01]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 
https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/v2/patch-status/codereview.chromium.or...

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-02-02 15:14:15]

CQ is committing da patch.

Bot data: {"patchset_id": 60001, "attempt_start_ts": 1486048191206350,
"parent_rev": "fb5f56bd9f05cbe7b8fed9e060c72bb38aa172d8", "commit_rev":
"5eded4b55c92335c96702d53aa319a360c86f556"}

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-02-02 15:14:53]

Description was changed from

==========
Make __DATE__, __TIME__ and __TIMESTAMP__ to evaluate to an empty string.

If __DATE__, __TIME__ or __TIMESTAMP__ used in code, current date or
time will be filled.  Such a value may change compile by compile, and
breaks deterministic build.

BUG=314403
==========

to

==========
Make __DATE__, __TIME__ and __TIMESTAMP__ to evaluate to an empty string.

If __DATE__, __TIME__ or __TIMESTAMP__ used in code, current date or
time will be filled.  Such a value may change compile by compile, and
breaks deterministic build.

BUG=314403

Review-Url: https://codereview.chromium.org/2664743002
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#447769}
Committed:
https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/5eded4b55c92335c96702d53aa31...
==========

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-02-02 15:14:55]

Committed patchset #4 (id:60001) as
https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/5eded4b55c92335c96702d53aa31...

[kjellander_chromium, 2017-02-07 14:21:04]

kjellander@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ kjellander@chromium.org

[kjellander_chromium, 2017-02-07 14:21:04]

This CL breaks our Google internal builds due to redefinition (we import the
WebRTC source code, which in turn shares the Chromium toolchain).
 
Is there a way we can solve this problem in a better way?

[Nico, 2017-02-07 15:02:58]

How do you build with the Google toolchain and gn?

On Feb 7, 2017 9:21 AM, <kjellander@chromium.org> wrote:

> This CL breaks our Google internal builds due to redefinition (we import
> the
> WebRTC source code, which in turn shares the Chromium toolchain).
>
> Is there a way we can solve this problem in a better way?
>
> https://codereview.chromium.org/2664743002/
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Chromium-reviews" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to chromium-reviews+unsubscribe@chromium.org.

[kjellander_chromium, 2017-02-07 15:47:01]

On 2017/02/07 15:02:58, Nico wrote:
> How do you build with the Google toolchain and gn?

We have written a tool that generates Bazel BUILD files.

> 
> On Feb 7, 2017 9:21 AM, <mailto:kjellander@chromium.org> wrote:
> 
> > This CL breaks our Google internal builds due to redefinition (we import
> > the
> > WebRTC source code, which in turn shares the Chromium toolchain).
> >
> > Is there a way we can solve this problem in a better way?
> >
> > https://codereview.chromium.org/2664743002/
> >
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Chromium-reviews" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email
> to mailto:chromium-reviews+unsubscribe@chromium.org.

[Nico, 2017-02-07 15:50:20]

On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 10:47 AM, <kjellander@chromium.org> wrote:

> On 2017/02/07 15:02:58, Nico wrote:
> > How do you build with the Google toolchain and gn?
>
> We have written a tool that generates Bazel BUILD files.
>

Is there a way to tell the google toolchain to not do global flags setup,
since we do that already? gn assumes that it controls the build.

This feels like something you should workaround on your end. I think we
don't want to make writing Chromium build files more difficult for that use
case.


>
>
> >
> > On Feb 7, 2017 9:21 AM, <mailto:kjellander@chromium.org> wrote:
> >
> > > This CL breaks our Google internal builds due to redefinition (we
> import
> > > the
> > > WebRTC source code, which in turn shares the Chromium toolchain).
> > >
> > > Is there a way we can solve this problem in a better way?
> > >
> > > https://codereview.chromium.org/2664743002/
> > >
> >
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > "Chromium-reviews" group.
> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email
> > to mailto:chromium-reviews+unsubscribe@chromium.org.
>
>
>
> https://codereview.chromium.org/2664743002/
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Chromium-reviews" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to chromium-reviews+unsubscribe@chromium.org.

[kjellander_chromium, 2017-02-07 19:30:59]

On 2017/02/07 15:50:20, Nico wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 10:47 AM, <mailto:kjellander@chromium.org> wrote:
> 
> > On 2017/02/07 15:02:58, Nico wrote:
> > > How do you build with the Google toolchain and gn?
> >
> > We have written a tool that generates Bazel BUILD files.
> >
> 
> Is there a way to tell the google toolchain to not do global flags setup,
> since we do that already? gn assumes that it controls the build.
> 
> This feels like something you should workaround on your end. I think we
> don't want to make writing Chromium build files more difficult for that use
> case.

I agree this should probably be addressed downstream. But the easiest solution
would be to define these macros to 'redacted'. Then they'd have the same value
in Chromium and internally, thus not causing any redefinition error (IIUC).

> 
> 
> >
> >
> > >
> > > On Feb 7, 2017 9:21 AM, <mailto:kjellander@chromium.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > > This CL breaks our Google internal builds due to redefinition (we
> > import
> > > > the
> > > > WebRTC source code, which in turn shares the Chromium toolchain).
> > > >
> > > > Is there a way we can solve this problem in a better way?
> > > >
> > > > https://codereview.chromium.org/2664743002/
> > > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > > "Chromium-reviews" group.
> > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> > email
> > > to mailto:chromium-reviews+unsubscribe@chromium.org.
> >
> >
> >
> > https://codereview.chromium.org/2664743002/
> >
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Chromium-reviews" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email
> to mailto:chromium-reviews+unsubscribe@chromium.org.

[Nico, 2017-02-07 19:32:01]

On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 2:30 PM, <kjellander@chromium.org> wrote:

> On 2017/02/07 15:50:20, Nico wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 10:47 AM, <mailto:kjellander@chromium.org> wrote:
> >
> > > On 2017/02/07 15:02:58, Nico wrote:
> > > > How do you build with the Google toolchain and gn?
> > >
> > > We have written a tool that generates Bazel BUILD files.
> > >
> >
> > Is there a way to tell the google toolchain to not do global flags setup,
> > since we do that already? gn assumes that it controls the build.
> >
> > This feels like something you should workaround on your end. I think we
> > don't want to make writing Chromium build files more difficult for that
> use
> > case.
>
> I agree this should probably be addressed downstream. But the easiest
> solution
> would be to define these macros to 'redacted'. Then they'd have the same
> value
> in Chromium and internally, thus not causing any redefinition error (IIUC).
>

If that fixes things for you, then that sounds like something we'd accept.
Want to send a patch? :-)


>
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > On Feb 7, 2017 9:21 AM, <mailto:kjellander@chromium.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > This CL breaks our Google internal builds due to redefinition (we
> > > import
> > > > > the
> > > > > WebRTC source code, which in turn shares the Chromium toolchain).
> > > > >
> > > > > Is there a way we can solve this problem in a better way?
> > > > >
> > > > > https://codereview.chromium.org/2664743002/
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups
> > > > "Chromium-reviews" group.
> > > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
> send an
> > > email
> > > > to mailto:chromium-reviews+unsubscribe@chromium.org.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > https://codereview.chromium.org/2664743002/
> > >
> >
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > "Chromium-reviews" group.
> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email
> > to mailto:chromium-reviews+unsubscribe@chromium.org.
>
>
>
> https://codereview.chromium.org/2664743002/
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Chromium-reviews" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to chromium-reviews+unsubscribe@chromium.org.

[Dirk Pranke, 2017-02-07 20:21:54]

On 2017/02/07 19:32:01, Nico wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 2:30 PM, <mailto:kjellander@chromium.org> wrote:
> 
> > On 2017/02/07 15:50:20, Nico wrote:
> > > On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 10:47 AM, <mailto:kjellander@chromium.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On 2017/02/07 15:02:58, Nico wrote:
> > > > > How do you build with the Google toolchain and gn?
> > > >
> > > > We have written a tool that generates Bazel BUILD files.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Is there a way to tell the google toolchain to not do global flags setup,
> > > since we do that already? gn assumes that it controls the build.
> > >
> > > This feels like something you should workaround on your end. I think we
> > > don't want to make writing Chromium build files more difficult for that
> > use
> > > case.
> >
> > I agree this should probably be addressed downstream. But the easiest
> > solution
> > would be to define these macros to 'redacted'. Then they'd have the same
> > value
> > in Chromium and internally, thus not causing any redefinition error (IIUC).
> >
> 
> If that fixes things for you, then that sounds like something we'd accept.
> Want to send a patch? :-)
> 

I'm lost here. How does setting __DATE__='' cause a problem, and why would
__DATE__=redacted be better?

[Dirk Pranke, 2017-02-07 20:30:10]

On 2017/02/07 20:21:54, Dirk Pranke (slow until Feb 7) wrote:
> I'm lost here. How does setting __DATE__='' cause a problem, and why would
> __DATE__=redacted be better?

To be clear, changing the value to something else is fine with me, I'd just like
to understand the problem you're hitting better. Feel free to reply off-CL.

[Nico, 2017-02-07 20:54:29]

From my understanding, the internal toolchain sets it to undefined, and
defining it to two different things causes a warning while defining it to
two different things doesn't.

On Feb 7, 2017 3:30 PM, <dpranke@chromium.org> wrote:

> On 2017/02/07 20:21:54, Dirk Pranke (slow until Feb 7) wrote:
> > I'm lost here. How does setting __DATE__='' cause a problem, and why
> would
> > __DATE__=redacted be better?
>
> To be clear, changing the value to something else is fine with me, I'd
> just like
> to understand the problem you're hitting better. Feel free to reply off-CL.
>
> https://codereview.chromium.org/2664743002/
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Chromium-reviews" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to chromium-reviews+unsubscribe@chromium.org.

[kjellander_chromium, 2017-02-07 20:56:11]

On 2017/02/07 20:21:54, Dirk Pranke (slow until Feb 7) wrote:
> On 2017/02/07 19:32:01, Nico wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 2:30 PM, <mailto:kjellander@chromium.org> wrote:
> > 
> > > On 2017/02/07 15:50:20, Nico wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 10:47 AM, <mailto:kjellander@chromium.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On 2017/02/07 15:02:58, Nico wrote:
> > > > > > How do you build with the Google toolchain and gn?
> > > > >
> > > > > We have written a tool that generates Bazel BUILD files.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Is there a way to tell the google toolchain to not do global flags
setup,
> > > > since we do that already? gn assumes that it controls the build.
> > > >
> > > > This feels like something you should workaround on your end. I think we
> > > > don't want to make writing Chromium build files more difficult for that
> > > use
> > > > case.
> > >
> > > I agree this should probably be addressed downstream. But the easiest
> > > solution
> > > would be to define these macros to 'redacted'. Then they'd have the same
> > > value
> > > in Chromium and internally, thus not causing any redefinition error
(IIUC).
> > >
> > 
> > If that fixes things for you, then that sounds like something we'd accept.
> > Want to send a patch? :-)
> > 
> 
> I'm lost here. How does setting __DATE__='' cause a problem, and why would
> __DATE__=redacted be better?

The internal build toolchain sets it to __DATE__="redacted" so it would avoid
the redefinition.
But I think it's better we just filter out these defines instead (so no action
needed in Chromium).