On Tue, 12 May 2015, H.J. Lu wrote: > On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 6:42 AM, Richard Biener <rguent...@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. Richard. -- Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de> SUSE LINUX GmbH, GF: Felix Imendoerffer, Jane Smithard, Dilip Upmanyu, Graham Norton, HRB 21284 (AG Nuernberg)
