This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: PATCH: other/20731: contrib/gcc_update hard code -rgcc-3_4-branch
- From: Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: "H. J. Lu" <hjl at lucon dot org>
- Cc: gcc-patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Mon, 04 Apr 2005 12:38:39 +0100
- Subject: Re: PATCH: other/20731: contrib/gcc_update hard code -rgcc-3_4-branch
- Organization: GNU
- References: <20050402164411.GA24069@lucon.org>
On Sat, 2005-04-02 at 17:44, H. J. Lu wrote:
> This patch will make sure cvs update picks up the branch from CVS/Tag.
> I tested it on mainline, gcc 3.4 and gcc 3.4 rhl.
>
>
> H.J.
> ----
> 2005-04-02 H.J. Lu <hongjiu.lu@intel.com>
>
> PR other/20731
> * gcc_update: Check CVS/Tag for branch.
>
> --- contrib/gcc_update.br 2005-03-28 11:55:25.000000000 -0800
> +++ contrib/gcc_update 2005-04-02 08:36:41.163020307 -0800
> @@ -249,7 +249,12 @@ fi
>
> chat "Updating CVS tree"
>
> -$GCC_CVS -q ${silent+-Q} update ${1+"$@"}
> +if [ -f CVS/Tag ]; then
> +GCC_BRANCH="-r `sed -e 's/^T//' CVS/Tag`"
> +else
> +GCC_BRANCH=
> +fi
> +$GCC_CVS -q ${silent+-Q} $GCC_BRANCH update ${1+"$@"}
> if [ $? -ne 0 ]; then
> (touch_files_reexec)
> echo "CVS update of full tree failed." >&2
I think this is a bad idea. If I explicitly check out a single file
with a specific version, then this patch will cause gcc_update to
silently undo that and reset the file to the head of the branch.
It would probably be ok if this were wrapped by some sort of flag (such
as --force-latest), but I don't think it should be the default.
R.