[PATCH v1 0/6] TIMESTAMP output section command

[Hans-Peter Nilsson]

On Thu, 9 Oct 2025, Ulf Samuelsson wrote:
> Den 2025-10-09 kl. 08:03, skrev Hans-Peter Nilsson:
> > I'll one-up Alan's suggestion: for your definition of a
> > timestamp, use the ld command-line option
> >   "--defsym my_timestamp=`date '+%s'`"
> > and use
> >   "QUAD(my_timestamp)" in the
> > linker script.  Works with today's version.
> > And yesterday's, and ten years ago: I checked.

> It is possible to do it this way. That does not mean that it is a good way to
> implement it this way.
> The current linker decides on timestamp without having to specify something as
> a command line
> option when you generate the timestamp for an ELF header or similar.
> 
> If the SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH environment variable is set and valid it will be
> used.
> If not, the current time will be used.

The above statements follow a logical line of reason.
(Not saying I agree with that line, but it's there.)

> Is there any reason why we want to do this differently for embedded system?

Then this out of the blue.  Totally non-sequitur.  Different to 
what?  What "embedded system" context (or non-embedded system 
context for that matter) is it that you refer to that is 
different to something else?

> > That it works with today's (and yester-year's) linker version,
> > not requiring any functionality, is important to embedded
> > developers.
> 
> Assume that 10,000 projects implements timestamp this way.

Building a strawman here.

> Then, they are forced by regulations to use "SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH" to implement
> timestamps.

Is there such a proposal somewhere?  Please link!

I'd say it could be just as likely that there was a regulation 
that it must *not* be affected by environment variables!

Please use logical reasoning when arguing about patches!
Argument claims should be verifiable.

brgds, H-P
/Still an embedded developer.