LabVIEW

cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

CRC checksum calculate other than MD5 for executable

Which is the best method to calculate the CRC checksum of Labview executable .Since I am facing CRC check sum is calculated differently every time when i do create the executable with out any change ,and I calculate the CRC checksum then I am getting different CRC checksum .

 

Basically I should be getting same CRC checksum every time. when I create exe with out anychange /any update .

 

Please let me know is there any other best methods which suits Labview executable othere than MD5

0 Kudos
Message 1 of 8
(1,833 Views)
You should be getting a different checksum every time you do a new build. At the very least, the build time/date will change.
0 Kudos
Message 2 of 8
(1,825 Views)

Is there any why where i can ignore the build date and time and check for the checksum , So that i get the get some same when i create build with out any update/change

0 Kudos
Message 3 of 8
(1,821 Views)
Not that I know of.
0 Kudos
Message 4 of 8
(1,816 Views)

@prajwal.prithviraj wrote:

Is there any why where i can ignore the build date and time and check for the checksum , So that i get the get some same when i create build with out any update/change


Is there any specific reason why you have this type of requirement?

-----

The best solution is the one you find it by yourself
0 Kudos
Message 5 of 8
(1,811 Views)

@prajwal.prithviraj wrote:

Which is the best method to calculate the CRC checksum of Labview executable .Since I am facing CRC check sum is calculated differently every time when i do create the executable with out any change ,and I calculate the CRC checksum then I am getting different CRC checksum .

 

Basically I should be getting same CRC checksum every time. when I create exe with out anychange /any update .

 

Please let me know is there any other best methods which suits Labview executable othere than MD5


If you are using the checksum to certify software on a tester it SHOULD fail certification if you rebuild the executable and use the old certification information.  I know the DoD would come down on top of you like a ton of bricks if your certification didn't catch that.

Bill
CLD
(Mid-Level minion.)
My support system ensures that I don't look totally incompetent.
Proud to say that I've progressed beyond knowing just enough to be dangerous. I now know enough to know that I have no clue about anything at all.
Humble author of the CLAD Nugget.
0 Kudos
Message 6 of 8
(1,793 Views)

This issue of rebuilding giving a different executable is an issue for every compiler I have ever touched.  At the very least, there is date/time information in there that changes from build to build.  If you are looking for the rebuildablity of your code, what I have done in the past is just do a direct binary comparison between the released build and the test build and check for something like 80% identical.  And yes, that was the spec we made for programs written in C++ as well.


GCentral
There are only two ways to tell somebody thanks: Kudos and Marked Solutions
Unofficial Forum Rules and Guidelines
"Not that we are sufficient in ourselves to claim anything as coming from us, but our sufficiency is from God" - 2 Corinthians 3:5
0 Kudos
Message 7 of 8
(1,771 Views)

@crossrulz wrote:

This issue of rebuilding giving a different executable is an issue for every compiler I have ever touched.  At the very least, there is date/time information in there that changes from build to build.  


Because of this we actually store the EXE built in SCC.  Many will say that's not what SCC is for, it isn't source.  And this is true, but this is the easiest way for me to keep track of EXEs and roll back to the bit-for-bit version previously used.  If I get a report back and it says it failed a step and the software used was 1.0.2.123, I want to know that I can roll back to that exact EXE, and exact source.  I could roll back source to that version, and build a new EXE but that won't be the same 1.0.2.123 it will be a different one that we assume will function the same.

Message 8 of 8
(1,750 Views)