GH-35596: [C++][CI] Improve compilation caching with PCG #35597
Conversation
Also warn/error out if non-deterministic compilation macros such as `__TIME__` are used (with gcc and clang at least).
github-actions
bot
added
awaiting committer review
|
The |
|
Benchmark runs are scheduled for baseline = 8be70c1 and contender = f6e4479. f6e4479 is a master commit associated with this PR. Results will be available as each benchmark for each run completes. |
|
['Python', 'R'] benchmarks have high level of regressions. |
…e#35597) ### Rationale for this change The PCG headers use the `__DATE__` and `__TIME__` macros, which makes builds non-deterministic: imneme/pcg-cpp#59 Deterministic builds are useful for a number of reasons. One is security audits of binary artifacts, another (that directly affects us) is making compilation caching as efficient as possible. Preprocessor-based compilation caching breaks when time-dependent macros are used. ### What changes are included in this PR? Remove the `struct static_arbitrary_seed` construct from PCG. Also, enable a gcc/clang warning that detects the use of non-deterministic preprocessor macros. ### Are these changes tested? Yes, by the additional warning (which is turned into an error in "checkin" warnings mode). ### Are there any user-facing changes? No. * Closes: apache#35596 Authored-by: Antoine Pitrou <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Antoine Pitrou <[email protected]>
Rationale for this change
The PCG headers use the
__DATE__and__TIME__macros, which makes builds non-deterministic:imneme/pcg-cpp#59
Deterministic builds are useful for a number of reasons. One is security audits of binary artifacts, another (that directly affects us) is making compilation caching as efficient as possible. Preprocessor-based compilation caching breaks when time-dependent macros are used.
What changes are included in this PR?
Remove the
struct static_arbitrary_seedconstruct from PCG.Also, enable a gcc/clang warning that detects the use of non-deterministic preprocessor macros.
Are these changes tested?
Yes, by the additional warning (which is turned into an error in "checkin" warnings mode).
Are there any user-facing changes?
No.