This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: PR 9479 (was Re: GCC-3.2.2 pre-release (third iteration))
> >The code should stay as is, it definitely should not
> >handle 5 digit version numbers without date.
> >binutils 2.12.90.0.xx without date string were not having proper
> >hidden support, although 2.12.90 > 2.12.1.
On Fri, Feb 07, 2003 at 11:15:52AM +0100, Franz Sirl wrote:
> That's exactly the reason why I regularly request the binutils mainline
> version to be bumped automatically when a release out of the branch is
> done. Then it's much easier to correlate the binutils versions. Strangely
> enough nobody else seems to feel the need...
These kinds of things will happen independently of any version numbering
scheme you use; if HJ makes a release based on the branch that is intended
to become 2.13, and then a bug fix is released that is a minor change
to 2.12, this is exactly what you can expect: the lower-numbered version
will have a bug fix that is not in the higher-numbered version. Calling
something that is "almost 2.13" 2.12.90 is a long-established GNU
convention.
So either someone needs to write a configure test that directly tests
for support of the STV_HIDDEN feature, or we further complicate this
version number check, or we just let the five-digit releases with no
dates fall between the cracks.