This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: release tarballs should have LAST_UPDATED containing releasetag?
- From: Gerald Pfeifer <gerald at pfeifer dot com>
- To: Dan Kegel <dank at kegel dot com>
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>
- Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 00:31:30 +0200 (CEST)
- Subject: Re: release tarballs should have LAST_UPDATED containing releasetag?
- References: <3F0C3B68.20409@kegel.com>
On Wed, 9 Jul 2003, Dan Kegel wrote:
> I'm building from release tarballs (you can see my automated build-and-test
> script at http://kegel.com/crosstool). I am running the gcc regression
> test, followed by contrib/test_summary. My script aborts because test_summary
> exits with nonzero status, with the error
> /foo/gcc-3.3-glibc-2.2.5/gcc-3.3/LAST_UPDATED: No such file or directory
I believe this is due to
2001-07-27 Richard Henderson <rth@redhat.com>
* test_summary: Copy LAST_UPDATED UTC time to head of summary.
which unconditionally tries to print LAST_UPDATED instead of first
checking whether that file exists.
Richard, my AWK is quite non-existant, else I'd have fixed this right
away; would you mind having a look? Thanks!
> I see that file is supposed to be created by contrib/gcc_update with
> the date. It might be nice for the released gcc tarballs to contain
> a LAST_UPDATED file containing just the release tag.
Hmm, we could do that, but I'm not sure whether that's still needed
once test_summary has been fixed?
Gerald