From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26298 invoked by alias); 26 Nov 2004 09:06:50 -0000 Mailing-List: contact binutils-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: binutils-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 26246 invoked from network); 26 Nov 2004 09:06:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 26 Nov 2004 09:06:43 -0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id iAQ96cWF030530; Fri, 26 Nov 2004 04:06:38 -0500 Received: from talisman.cambridge.redhat.com (talisman.cambridge.redhat.com [172.16.18.81]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id iAQ96ar21956; Fri, 26 Nov 2004 04:06:36 -0500 Received: from talisman.cambridge.redhat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by talisman.cambridge.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.12.10) with ESMTP id iAQ96ZKu032688; Fri, 26 Nov 2004 09:06:35 GMT Received: (from rsandifo@localhost) by talisman.cambridge.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.12.10/Submit) id iAQ96ZcD032687; Fri, 26 Nov 2004 09:06:35 GMT X-Authentication-Warning: talisman.cambridge.redhat.com: rsandifo set sender to rsandifo@redhat.com using -f To: Zack Weinberg Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, java-patches@gcc.gnu.org, libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org, binutils@sources.redhat.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Factor configure-time gcc version checks (patch 1/4 for PR 7305) References: <87is7tejx4.fsf@redhat.com> <87hdndmyg8.fsf@codesourcery.com> From: Richard Sandiford Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2004 09:06:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <87hdndmyg8.fsf@codesourcery.com> (Zack Weinberg's message of "Thu, 25 Nov 2004 13:05:27 -0800") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.1006 (Gnus v5.10.6) Emacs/21.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2004-11/txt/msg00351.txt.bz2 Zack Weinberg writes: > I think this is a fine idea (though I cannot approve it) and I would > like to encourage you also to break the version number proper and the > date stamp out of gcc/version.c. Yeah, a separate version file is probably a good idea, but I'm afraid it's not something I'm likely to tackle myself, sorry. Richard