One version number, &c, take two

[Zack Weinberg]

DJ Delorie <dj@redhat.com> writes:

>> The patch adds three files in the toplevel config/ directory.
>> GCC-BASE-VER contains the base version number of the compiler.
>> DATESTAMP contains the tree datestamp in the usual YYYYMMDD format;
>> it is empty in a release tarball.
>
> Shouldn't that be GCC-DATESTAMP?  The toplevel is shared between a
> number of otherwise independent projects.

I don't see why those projects would ever want to have divergent
opinions of what the current date is.

> Plus the usual complaint about putting gcc-specific files in a shared
> toplevel directory. 

They're not gcc-specific; they are used by several other top-level
directories, so putting them in the gcc subdirectory is inappropriate,
in my opinion.  Also, in the hypothetical scenario where binutils,
gdb, etc. move to a similar scheme, I think it would be convenient to
have all the version numbers in one place.

zw