Add an Auto-Incrementing Build-Number to Your Build Process

July 8th, 2008 by Mitch Frazier in

When building software it's often useful to give each iteration of your build process a unique number. Many IDEs and RAD tools do this for you automatically. If yours doesn't and you're using a make file to build your code you can add an auto-incrementing build number to your project with a few simple changes to your make file.

The mechanism presented here does not need to modify your source code at all, it uses linker symbols to add the build number to your program. Note however that you will probably want to modify your source code to display the build number, but that's not strictly necessary.

Let's start with the following simple make file for building a program:

# Makefile

OBJECTS=bnum.o

a.out: $(OBJECTS)
    $(CC) $(LDFLAGS) -o $@ $(OBJECTS)
This make file builds a.out from the file bnum.c (through a make built-in rule).

To add the build number to the make file we set the variable BUILD_NUMBER_FILE to the name of a file that will contain our build number value. Then we add BUILD_NUMBER_FILE to the dependencies for a.out, add BUILD_NUMBER_LDFLAGS to the flags used when linking the program, and finally include the file buildnumber.mak at the end of the make file. The converted make file looks like:

# Makefile

# Name of text file containing build number.
BUILD_NUMBER_FILE=build-number.txt

OBJECTS=bnum.o

a.out: $(OBJECTS) $(BUILD_NUMBER_FILE)
    $(CC) $(LDFLAGS) $(BUILD_NUMBER_LDFLAGS) -o $@ $(OBJECTS)

# Include build number rules.
include buildnumber.mak

The included file buildnumber.mak looks like:

# Create an auto-incrementing build number.

BUILD_NUMBER_LDFLAGS  = -Xlinker --defsym -Xlinker __BUILD_DATE=$$(date +'%Y%m%d')
BUILD_NUMBER_LDFLAGS += -Xlinker --defsym -Xlinker __BUILD_NUMBER=$$(cat $(BUILD_NUMBER_FILE))

# Build number file.  Increment if any object file changes.
$(BUILD_NUMBER_FILE): $(OBJECTS)
    @if ! test -f $(BUILD_NUMBER_FILE); then echo 0 > $(BUILD_NUMBER_FILE); fi
    @echo $$(($$(cat $(BUILD_NUMBER_FILE)) + 1)) > $(BUILD_NUMBER_FILE)

    
The first few lines define the linker flags and the rule defines the mechanism for incrementing the build number.

The linker flags cause the linker to create two symbols: __BUILD_NUMBER and __BUILD_DATE which will be equal to the build number and the build-date respectively. The build-date is set using the standard date command. The build number is simply the value contained in the build number file, which is extracted using the standard cat command.

The make rule for the build number file depends on all the project object files and if any of them changes the build number is incremented by executing the following commands:

if ! test -f build-number.txt; then echo 0 > build-number.txt; fi
echo $(($(cat build-number.txt) + 1)) > build-number.txt
The first command checks to see if the build number file exists. If it doesn't a single line of text, a zero is written to it. The second command uses cat to get the line of text and the shell's built-in arithmetic evaluation $((expr)) to increment it and write it back to the build number file.

The test program bnum.c merely writes out the build number and build-date:

#include <stdio.h>

extern char   __BUILD_DATE;
extern char   __BUILD_NUMBER;

main()
{
    printf("Build date  : %u\n", (unsigned long) &__BUILD_DATE);
    printf("Build number: %u\n", (unsigned long) &__BUILD_NUMBER);
}
Note that linker symbols are not variables, they have no memory allocated for maintaining a value, rather their address is their value.

A sample of iterative builds is shown below:

  $ rm bnum.o; make
  cc -c -o bnum.o bnum.c
  cc -Xlinker --defsym -Xlinker __BUILD_DATE=$(date +'%Y%m%d') \
     -Xlinker --defsym -Xlinker __BUILD_NUMBER=$(cat build-number.txt) -o a.out bnum.o
  $ ./a.out
  Build date  : 20080708
  Build number: 24
  $ rm bnum.o; make
  cc -c -o bnum.o bnum.c
  cc  -Xlinker --defsym -Xlinker __BUILD_DATE=$(date +'%Y%m%d') \
      -Xlinker --defsym -Xlinker __BUILD_NUMBER=$(cat build-number.txt) -o a.out bnum.o
  $ ./a.out
  Build date  : 20080708
  Build number: 25

One caveat to an auto-incrementing build number is that just because you have two versions of a program with different build numbers it does not mean they are functionally different. If you routinely run make clean; make all just for fun, you'll get a new build number but nothing will have changed.

__________________________

Mitch Frazier is the System Administrator at Linux Journal.


Special Magazine Offer -- 2 Free Trial Issues!
Receive 2 free trial issues of Linux Journal as well as instant online access to current and past issues. There's NO RISK and NO OBLIGATION to buy. CLICK HERE for offer

Linux Journal: delivering readers the advice and inspiration they need to get the most out of their Linux systems since 1994.

Sorry, offer available in the US only. International orders, click here.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

I personally don't like this

On August 4th, 2008 smoser says:

I've done a fair amount of work in trying to verify what source object code came from, and guaranteeing that a build of that same source at another point in time will produce identical output. This is largely of interest to a distribution that wants to make sure their source packages recompile as expected.

This sort of "feature" is quite annoying in doing that. lots of packages do similar things to this. There is even a gnu cpp compiler macro that you can use (if forget what it is).

The problem is that identical source input starts to produce binary output that differs every time a second ticks off the clock.

just my 2 cents.

Avoid a circular reference

On July 9th, 2008 V-12 Bill (not verified) says:

This is a nice tip.
However, make will complain about a circular reference.

Instead of:

OBJECTS=bnum.o

You may want to do this:

SOURCES=bnum.c
OBJECTS=$(SOURCES:.c=.o)

Then - (note dependency change)

$(BUILD_NUMBER_FILE): $(SOURCES)
@if ! test -f $(BUILD_NUMBER_FILE); then echo 0 > $(BUILD_NUMBER_FILE); fi
@echo $$(($$(cat $(BUILD_NUMBER_FILE)) + 1)) > $(BUILD_NUMBER_FILE)

This will avoid a circular reference. However, you only get a build number increment for source file changes.

I don't get any complaints from make. Did you actually test this and get a complaint from make?

Seems like BUILD_NUMBER_FILE should depend on the same thing that linking depends on, so that every time you re-link you get a new version number. Not relevant for this example, but in more complex cases, depending on the sources would miss changes in header files.

__________________________

Mitch Frazier is the System Administrator at Linux Journal.

Featured Videos

Linux Journal Gadget Guy, Shawn Powers, reviews the Flip Video Ultra, a small portable video camera, and shows us how easy it is to edit the video with Kino.

Thanks to our sponsor: Silicon Mechanics

Webcams are notorious for their lack of support under Linux. But thanks to GSPCA, many webcams now have functional V4L drivers. This tutorial covers the building, installation, and configuration of the GSPCA drivers, including how to adjust color balance and brightness directly at the kernel module level.

From the Magazine

September 2008, #173

Feeling a bit like a Thermian? Never give up, never surrender! Someday, you could go from underdog to top dog. Just take a look at a few of the underdogs we highlight in this issue: Mutt, djbdns, Nginix, Gentoo, Xara and the program voted mostly likely to fail just a few years back—Firefox. If Firefox not radical enough for you, check out Chef Marcel's column for some more alternatives. Having trouble mapping your program data to your relational database? If so, Rueven Lerner shows you some tricks in his At The Forge column.

Need to run GUI applications on your server in the next state? In his Paranoid Penguin column, Mick Bauer shows you how to do it securely. Kyle Rankin keeps hacking and slashing and shows you a few split screen secrets you may not be familiar with. Finally, we all know what happens next February, but only Doc knows what happens afterward.

Read this issue