This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: My patch for GCC 5 directory names
- From: Richard Biener <rguenther at suse dot de>
- To: "H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>
- Cc: GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
- Date: Tue, 12 May 2015 15:54:54 +0200 (CEST)
- 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> <CAMe9rOrHbbprYzpFCvUDcf9cWfCMg3C=VC0LCznSYu8K28DARQ at mail dot gmail dot com>
On Tue, 12 May 2015, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 6:42 AM, Richard Biener <rguenther@suse.de> 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.
It's not a pre-release - it's a post-release. We had confused
customers about this (and patched out that "prerelease" wording
while at the same time decreasing the patchlevel number, thus
instead of 4.8.4 (prerelease) [... revision 123] we shipped with 4.8.3
[... revision 123]).
prerelease just sounds wrong.
Richard.
--
Richard Biener <rguenther@suse.de>
SUSE LINUX GmbH, GF: Felix Imendoerffer, Jane Smithard, Dilip Upmanyu, Graham Norton, HRB 21284 (AG Nuernberg)