This is the mail archive of the
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 16:01:39 +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> <alpine dot LSU dot 2 dot 11 dot 1505121552480 dot 18702 at zhemvz dot fhfr dot qr> <CAMe9rOrbA-2pH3GriTBdyfhBqTcsMssbZLHxZeCMpNuMmh8cyQ at mail dot gmail dot com>
On Tue, 12 May 2015, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 6:54 AM, Richard Biener <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > On Tue, 12 May 2015, H.J. Lu wrote:
> >> On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 6:42 AM, Richard Biener <email@example.com> 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
> Why not just rename prerelease to post-release? That is a one-line
Why print anything at all? 5.1.1 is after 5.1.0 in obvious ways.
Richard Biener <firstname.lastname@example.org>
SUSE LINUX GmbH, GF: Felix Imendoerffer, Jane Smithard, Dilip Upmanyu, Graham Norton, HRB 21284 (AG Nuernberg)