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: My patch for GCC 5 directory names


On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 6:54 AM, Richard Biener <rguenther@suse.de> wrote:
> 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.
>

So we have

experimental
release
post-release

Why not just rename prerelease to post-release? That is a one-line
change.

-- 
H.J.


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