On Mon, 4 May 2015, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Mon, May 04, 2015 at 11:13:51AM +0200, Rainer Orth wrote: > > Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> writes: > > > > > On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 04:31:52PM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote: > > >> Hi, > > >> > > >> I checked this patch into gcc-5-branch. > > > > > > That's wrong according to https://gcc.gnu.org/develop.html#num_scheme > > > > HJ has a point, though: with DEV-PHASE remaining empty, all post-5.1.0 > > versions of gcc identify as 5.1.1, with no way of telling them apart, > > like datestamp and revison. > > That suggests we should change > DATESTAMP_s := "\"$(if $(DEVPHASE_c), $(DATESTAMP_c))\"" > so that it would expand to DATESTAMP_c also if DEVPHASE_c is empty, > but BASEVER_c does not end with .0
Yes. Richard. -- Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de> SUSE LINUX GmbH, GF: Felix Imendoerffer, Jane Smithard, Jennifer Guild, Dilip Upmanyu, Graham Norton HRB 21284 (AG Nuernberg)
