This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org 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 version bikeshedding



> -----Original Message-----
> From: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org] On Behalf
> Of Andi Kleen
> Sent: 20 July 2014 22:29
> To: Paulo Matos
> Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: GCC version bikeshedding
> 
> Paulo Matos <paulo@matos-sorge.com> writes:
> >
> > That's what I understood as well. Someone mentioned to leave the
> patch
> > level number to the distros to use which sounded like a good idea.
> 
> Sounds like a bad idea, as then there would be non unique gcc
> versions.
> redhat gcc 5.0.2 potentially being completely different from suse gcc
> 5.0.2
> 

I understand your concern but I am not convinced it's bad. The main reason for this is that we wouldn't distribute GCCs x.y.z with z != 0 so if you would see 5.0.3 in the wild then you could only conclude it's 5.0 with a few patches from some vendor. As I type this I am starting to think how frustrating this might become. However, isn't it the case that nowadays you can have different gcc 4.9.1-2 distributed from different distros? The default gcc in my linode shows: gcc version 4.6.3 (Ubuntu/Linaro 4.6.3-1ubuntu5)

So, I can't see why in the future you couldn't have:
Gcc version 5.1 (Ubuntu/Linaro 5.1.3)

This is only if the release managers want to assign the patch level number to distros. I don't think there was a decision on this.

Paulo Matos


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