This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: PATCH: binutils without a date is not handled properly without GNU sed
On Thu, May 15, 2003 at 08:43:33PM -0500, Loren James Rittle wrote:
> In article <20030515021737.N13397@devserv.devel.redhat.com>,
> Jakub Jelinek<email@example.com> writes:
> >> $(ld_vers) is later parsed with expr in a manner that tolerates extra
> >> dotted numbers after the patch level.  Permission to apply to mainline?
> Thanks for the quick review Jakub and additional comments from Andreas.
> > Certainly not, this breaks the test.  There were binutils
> > 22.214.171.124.xx releases which did not have proper hidden support.
> Ah, precisely why I posted it for comments instead of assuming my
> patch was somehow "obvious". Sorry I didn't know about those
> releases. I can see your point and since we are unwilling to discuss
> the merits or lack thereof of supporting test releases that were
> suppose to be killed upon the release of FSF 2.13 (I do assume that
> you and binutils developers know better than I on that point; I don't
> want to open that can ;-), I will produce another patch given below.
For whatever unfortunate reason, the 126.96.36.199.xx releases were not
test releases - anything with the fourth 0 and a fifth digit comes from
HJ's "Linux binutils" and is considered a release.
Just to clarify the record.
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer