From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19749 invoked by alias); 18 Jan 2007 02:59:35 -0000 Received: (qmail 19741 invoked by uid 22791); 18 Jan 2007 02:59:34 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-out3.apple.com (HELO mail-out3.apple.com) (17.254.13.22) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 18 Jan 2007 02:59:28 +0000 Received: from relay7.apple.com (relay7.apple.com [17.128.113.37]) by mail-out3.apple.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id l0I2xN7h025459; Wed, 17 Jan 2007 18:59:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from relay7.apple.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by relay7.apple.com (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id 7B39A30077; Wed, 17 Jan 2007 18:59:23 -0800 (PST) X-AuditID: 11807125-a5a55bb000006e4c-8a-45aee28ba4c6 Received: from [17.201.24.248] (unknown [17.201.24.248]) by relay7.apple.com (Apple SCV relay) with ESMTP id 1D20330049; Wed, 17 Jan 2007 18:59:23 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <1169072479.5748.2.camel@localhost> References: <1169009449.16957.11.camel@localhost> <1169072479.5748.2.camel@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v749.3) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: Cc: Ian Lance Taylor , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Mike Stump Subject: Re: Patch pings Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 02:59:00 -0000 To: Ben Elliston X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.749.3) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2007-01/txt/msg01491.txt.bz2 On Jan 17, 2007, at 2:21 PM, Ben Elliston wrote: > At any rate, bother: they don't work with 2.5.4. :-( I don't > suppose it > would be possible to raise our minimum version requirement, would it? The file changes so infrequently and by so few people, that I actually don't mind bumping the version for flex even though my system hangs around 2.5.4 currently. I'd propose that we allow the bump up to 2.5.31. 99% of developers won't even need to update their flex and no user would need to as we ship the output, right? Any argument against? (Did you run flex in the past 3 years for gcc?) If not, maybe someone wouldn't feel bad approving the patch and doc update... :-)