This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: My patch for GCC 5 directory names
- From: "H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>
- To: Richard Biener <rguenther at suse dot de>
- Cc: GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
- Date: Tue, 12 May 2015 06:51:41 -0700
- Subject: Re: My patch for GCC 5 directory names
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <alpine dot LSU dot 2 dot 11 dot 1505121536470 dot 18702 at zhemvz dot fhfr dot qr>
On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 6:42 AM, Richard Biener <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> I promised to send out my pat^Whack. Before building I introduce
> gcc/FULL-VER as copy of gcc/BASE-VER and adjust gcc/BASE-VER to
> just the major number. Then I only need the following small
> patch (where I don't speak enough tcl for fixing libjava.exp "properly").
> Without the FULL-VER trick the patch would be much larger (BASE-VER
> is referenced a lot). For a "real" patch (including configury) we
> probably want to generate a BASE-VER in the toplevel (or have
> a @BASE-VER@ substitute).
What is wrong to print "prerelease" with "gcc -v" on GCC 5 branch? If
it isn't a prerelease, what is it? And let's call it what it is.