My patch for GCC 5 directory names

[Richard Biener]

On Tue, 12 May 2015, H.J. Lu wrote:

> 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.

Why print anything at all?  5.1.1 is after 5.1.0 in obvious ways.

Richard.

-- 
Richard Biener <rguenther@suse.de>
SUSE LINUX GmbH, GF: Felix Imendoerffer, Jane Smithard, Dilip Upmanyu, Graham Norton, HRB 21284 (AG Nuernberg)