This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@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: PATCH: binutils without a date is not handled properly without GNU sed


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? ;-)

Regards,
Loren


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