From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8548 invoked by alias); 21 Jan 2008 21:43:53 -0000 Received: (qmail 8337 invoked by uid 48); 21 Jan 2008 21:43:09 -0000 Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 21:59:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20080121214309.8335.qmail@sourceware.org> X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC References: Subject: [Bug bootstrap/32287] gas version style changed causes warnings with configure In-Reply-To: Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org From: "hjl dot tools at gmail dot com" Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2008-01/txt/msg02430.txt.bz2 ------- Comment #10 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2008-01-21 21:43 ------- (In reply to comment #9) > > HJ, Richi, I can find a lot of confused versions of HJ's patch in that thread, > which starts here: > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-09/msg01170.html It is a good idea. > Nowhere can I find the actual approval. The only version which was approved > was safe, but the patch as applied is unsafe. If you put a .* there, then it > will match any "xx.yy" string anywhere in the version string, including after > the binutils version! This does not mess up on --with-pkgversion on new > versions of binutils but only because sed will use the shorter match, and the > binutils version comes second. > > + -e 's,^.*[ ]\([0-9][0-9]*\.[0-9][0-9]*.*\)$,\1,p' \ > -e 's,^.*[ ]\([0-9][0-9]*\.[0-9][0-9]*\)[ ].*$,\1,p' \ > > Note that second line will never match now. The second line isn't needed. I checked the following versions: ./check "GNU ld version 2.17.50.0.6-5.fc6 20061020" ./check "GNU ld version 2.17.50.0.12-4 20070128" ./check "GNU ld version 2.15.92.0.2 20040927" ./check "GNU ld (GNU Binutils) 2.18.50.20070913" ./check "GNU ld (Linux/GNU Binutils) 2.18.50.0.1.20070906" ./check "GNU ld (GNU Binutils) 2.17.50.20070726-12 (SUSE Linux)" ./check "GNU assembler (GNU Binutils for Debian) 2.17.50.20070426" and they work fine. Do you have more to add? -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32287