On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 7:01 AM, Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de> wrote: > On Tue, 12 May 2015, H.J. Lu wrote: > >> On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 6:54 AM, Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de> wrote: >> > 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. >> > >> >> 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.
