This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Add revision number to gcc version?
- From: "H. J. Lu" <hjl at lucon dot org>
- To: Ben Elliston <bje at au1 dot ibm dot com>
- Cc: David Daney <ddaney at avtrex dot com>, Mike Stump <mrs at apple dot com>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 21:02:16 -0800
- Subject: Re: Add revision number to gcc version?
- References: <20051114171441.GA12412@lucon.org> <787EE306-43A7-4D88-B458-E39420CED0D7@apple.com> <20051114220547.GA16652@lucon.org> <20051215221609.GA25537@lucon.org> <43A1F57A.50903@avtrex.com> <20051216045805.GA5060@ozlabs.au.ibm.com>
On Fri, Dec 16, 2005 at 03:58:05PM +1100, Ben Elliston wrote:
> > I like this, but what if you also did an svn status to see if there
> > were any modifications WRT the branch/revision and then add either
> > 'clean' or 'modified' to the information.
>
> I think this is a good idea (and don't mind the idea of `svn status'
> being run from gcc_update to do so), but I wonder if it's necessary to
> continue to include the date in the version.c file?
>
> I presume the main reason that the date was placed in version.c in the
> first place was that we had no other way to place an overall
> identifier on the tree revision with CVS. However, SVN now gives us
> one. Including the date now just makes the version string unwieldly,
> IMHO.
In my patch, gcc/REVISION is created by gcc_update. If you don't use
gcc_update, gcc/REVISION may not be there.
In any case, when we agree on what to put in gcc/REVISION, I can
provide a new patch.
H.J.