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
- From: Loren James Rittle <rittle at latour dot rsch dot comm dot mot dot com>
- To: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Fri, 16 May 2003 03:23:48 -0500 (CDT)
- Subject: Re: PATCH: binutils without a date is not handled properly without GNU sed
- Organization: Networks and Infrastructure Lab (IL02/2240), Motorola Labs
- References: <20030516014932.GA29988@nevyn.them.org>
In article <20030516022150.B13397@devserv.devel.redhat.com> you write:
>> BTW, if HJ always included a date in his releases, as I think he does,
>> then my first posted patch was actually quite fine, if we study the
>> logic used... ...but I decided to build the most robust patch based
>> on the feedback I got instead of complaining (which I'm not doing
>> here; just further clarifying my position ;-).
> HJ started to add date at the time when this gcc version checking came up,
> ie. any hjl's release without date doesn't have working hidden support
> and any hjl's release with date does.
> For the less than five digits releases the rule is >= 2.12.1 is ok.
And the logic in gcc/configure.in explicitly says to check the date
before the version. If there was a date present, then the version is
not even considered thus it doesn't matter if it was captured "wrong"
near the point of inflection. Thus, would you or someone else now be
willing to approve either the first or second version of my patch? ;-)