On 7 March 2025 07:03:16 UTC, Tiago Freire via Std-Proposals <std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>The simplest solution would be to just create a shell script that generates a file with the current time, let the build system call that shell script before build, and then not touch the compiler.
>That's what I do (and I don't think I'm the only one).
>Not everything needs to be a feature of the compiler.
>
>As for UUID. A time stamp is not a reliable way to create a UUID, so I'm not even going to bother with that use case.
>
>________________________________
>From: Std-Proposals <std-proposals-bounces_at_[hidden]> on behalf of Jan Schultke via Std-Proposals <std-proposals_at_[hidden]>
>Sent: Friday, March 7, 2025 7:19:32 AM
>To: std-proposals_at_[hidden] <std-proposals_at_[hidden]>
>Cc: Jan Schultke <janschultke_at_[hidden]>
>Subject: Re: [std-proposals] constexpr support for std::chrono::system_clock
>
>I've got a much simpler alternative idea: we could say that every clock has a
>
>> static constinit const time_point translation_time;
>
>... data member. There is no potential for ODR violations because you
>cannot access it during constant evaluation anyway. It's simply saying
>that you're baking the timestamp into the executable. The linker could
>still optimize it out if it's unused.
>--
>Std-Proposals mailing list
>Std-Proposals_at_[hidden]
>https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-proposals
>

There is also SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH, which is already supported by different compilers and tools, and already works today.