Re: My patch for GCC 5 directory names

["H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com>]

On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 7:01 AM, Richard Biener <rguenther@suse.de> wrote:
> On Tue, 12 May 2015, H.J. Lu wrote:
>
>> On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 6:54 AM, Richard Biener <rguenther@suse.de> wrote:
>> > On Tue, 12 May 2015, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 6:42 AM, Richard Biener <rguenther@suse.de> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > I promised to send out my pat^Whack.  Before building I introduce
>> >> > gcc/FULL-VER as copy of gcc/BASE-VER and adjust gcc/BASE-VER to
>> >> > just the major number.  Then I only need the following small
>> >> > patch (where I don't speak enough tcl for fixing libjava.exp "properly").
>> >> >
>> >> > Without the FULL-VER trick the patch would be much larger (BASE-VER
>> >> > is referenced a lot).  For a "real" patch (including configury) we
>> >> > probably want to generate a BASE-VER in the toplevel (or have
>> >> > a @BASE-VER@ substitute).
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> What is wrong to print "prerelease" with "gcc -v" on GCC 5 branch? If
>> >> it isn't a prerelease, what is it? And let's call it what it is.
>> >
>> > It's not a pre-release - it's a post-release.  We had confused
>> > customers about this (and patched out that "prerelease" wording
>> > while at the same time decreasing the patchlevel number, thus
>> > instead of 4.8.4 (prerelease) [... revision 123] we shipped with 4.8.3
>> > [... revision 123]).
>> >
>> > prerelease just sounds wrong.
>> >
>>
>> So we have
>>
>> experimental
>> release
>> post-release
>>
>> Why not just rename prerelease to post-release? That is a one-line
>> change.
>
> Why print anything at all?  5.1.1 is after 5.1.0 in obvious ways.
>

How can you tell GCC 5.1.1 on May 1, 2015 from GCC 5.1.1
on May 12, 2015?


-- 
H.J.