This is the mail archive of the gcc@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: GCC 3.1 version string

From: Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>
To: Joe Buck <Joe dot Buck at synopsys dot com>
Cc: Rainer Orth <ro at TechFak dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 17:52:42 -0700
Subject: Re: GCC 3.1 version string
References: <15588.5755.305982.23734@xayide.TechFak.Uni-Bielefeld.DE> <200205162058.NAA17450@atrus.synopsys.com>

On Thu, May 16, 2002 at 01:58:19PM -0700, Joe Buck wrote:
> It's the standard way that GNU tool versions come out.  It was 2.95 that
> was the oddball (an artifact coming from egcs); older gcc releases didn't
> have a date.

Frankly, I prefer having the date.

It was just pointed out that binutils 2.12.1 was released without
the date string too.  Which broke a test in gcc's configure that
looks for the damned thing.  And we did that because we couldn't
figure out how to build a feature test for a binutils flaw, and
can't possibly work around the gazillion binutils version numbers
that people invent.

r~

Follow-Ups:
- Re: GCC 3.1 version string
  - From: Daniel Jacobowitz

References:
- GCC 3.1 version string
  - From: Rainer Orth
- Re: GCC 3.1 version string
  - From: Joe Buck

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