This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: GCC 3.1 version string

On Thu, May 16, 2002 at 05:52:42PM -0700, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, May 16, 2002 at 01:58:19PM -0700, Joe Buck wrote:
> > It's the standard way that GNU tool versions come out.  It was 2.95 that
> > was the oddball (an artifact coming from egcs); older gcc releases didn't
> > have a date.
> Frankly, I prefer having the date.
> It was just pointed out that binutils 2.12.1 was released without
> the date string too.  Which broke a test in gcc's configure that
> looks for the damned thing.  And we did that because we couldn't
> figure out how to build a feature test for a binutils flaw, and
> can't possibly work around the gazillion binutils version numbers
> that people invent.

Er... I could have sworn I checked over that test, but it kept
changing.  Binutils official releases have been dateless since at least
2.11.x, although no one notices since everyone seems to prefer to use
HJ Lu's instead.

Daniel Jacobowitz                           Carnegie Mellon University
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]