From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23705 invoked by alias); 12 May 2015 13:54:59 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 23690 invoked by uid 89); 12 May 2015 13:54:58 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=1.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_50,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,SPAM_SUBJECT,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=no version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx2.suse.de Received: from cantor2.suse.de (HELO mx2.suse.de) (195.135.220.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (CAMELLIA256-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Tue, 12 May 2015 13:54:58 +0000 Received: from relay1.suse.de (charybdis-ext.suse.de [195.135.220.254]) by mx2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id E69E0AD5C; Tue, 12 May 2015 13:54:54 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 12 May 2015 13:59:00 -0000 From: Richard Biener To: "H.J. Lu" cc: GCC Patches , Jakub Jelinek Subject: Re: My patch for GCC 5 directory names In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: User-Agent: Alpine 2.11 (LSU 23 2013-08-11) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-SW-Source: 2015-05/txt/msg01084.txt.bz2 On Tue, 12 May 2015, H.J. Lu wrote: > On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 6:42 AM, Richard Biener 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. Richard. -- Richard Biener SUSE LINUX GmbH, GF: Felix Imendoerffer, Jane Smithard, Dilip Upmanyu, Graham Norton, HRB 21284 (AG Nuernberg)