From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20469 invoked by alias); 11 Dec 2012 12:18:45 -0000 Received: (qmail 20351 invoked by uid 48); 11 Dec 2012 12:18:24 -0000 From: "gjl at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug ada/55243] STAMP variable is not defined in t-avr Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 12:18:00 -0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: ada X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: gjl at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 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: 2012-12/txt/msg01102.txt.bz2 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55243 --- Comment #22 from Georg-Johann Lay 2012-12-11 12:18:23 UTC --- (In reply to comment #21) What I don't understand is what is bad with Rolf's proposal of defining STAMP? Stamping is not that unusual in the build process. Up to now it was not needed, but is it that critical to set STAMP like proposed above?