PR 9479 (was Re: GCC-3.2.2 pre-release (third iteration))

[Franz Sirl]

At 09:32 07.02.2003, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>On Fri, Feb 07, 2003 at 01:39:12PM +1100, Greg Schafer wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 05, 2003 at 02:07:04PM +1100, Greg Schafer wrote:
> > > On Tue, Feb 04, 2003 at 06:59:14PM -0800, Joe Buck wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Feb 05, 2003 at 12:01:49PM +1100, Greg Schafer wrote:
> > > > > HJ's realeases have a date string. The configury uses the date 
> string in
> > > > > preference to the version string. So no worries there..
> > > >
> > > > Maybe they do now, but the one that was packaged with Red Hat 7.2 did
> > > > not.  It says
> > > >
> > > > GNU ld 2.11.90.0.8
> > > >
> > > > with no date.
> > >
> > > Ooops. But luckily the version check is checking for 2.12.1 or later 
> so in
> > > theory this shouldn't present an issue. It would be nice to sort out 
> the 5
> > > digit case once and for all though. I'll try and get the patch 
> reworked to
> > > cope with 5 digits then attach it to PR 9479 then maybe we could get it
> > > applied to all branches..
> >
> > Ok, I have now attached a new patch to PR 9479 which should finalise this
> > matter once and far all.
> >
> > Joe/Jakub, could you pls review the patch(es) in the PR? If ok, pls then
> > apply to 3.2, 3.3 & 3.4 and close the PR.
>
>The code should stay as is, it definitely should not
>handle 5 digit version numbers without date.
>binutils 2.12.90.0.xx without date string were not having proper
>hidden support, although 2.12.90 > 2.12.1.

That's exactly the reason why I regularly request the binutils mainline 
version to be bumped automatically when a release out of the branch is 
done. Then it's much easier to correlate the binutils versions. Strangely 
enough nobody else seems to feel the need...

Franz.