| Message ID | alpine.LSU.2.11.1505121536470.18702@zhemvz.fhfr.qr |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
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.
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. Richard.
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.
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. Richard.
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?
Hi, On Tue, 12 May 2015, H.J. Lu wrote: > >> 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? Via the svn revision. But as the subject says, this patch is not so much about the --version output (though it changes it in IMO sensible way), but rather about file and directory names, so that they are based only on the major version, not on the micro version (where major before gcc5 was X.Y, and now is only X). Ciao, Michael.
On 05/12/2015 03:42 PM, 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"). > for reference, I'm using something similar for the distro packaging, http://anonscm.debian.org/viewvc/gcccvs/branches/sid/gcc-5/debian/patches/gcc-base-version.diff?view=markup addressing additional things like - c++ incdir - differentiating between the full version and the base version (you probably want to print out the full version for -v) > 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). that would be nice, but then maybe introduce another macro GCCSUBDIR for gcc/<alias>/<version>. Matthias
Index: gcc/Makefile.in =================================================================== --- gcc/Makefile.in.orig 2015-05-08 17:10:12.068697540 +0200 +++ gcc/Makefile.in 2015-05-08 17:25:31.831833081 +0200 @@ -810,12 +810,14 @@ GTM_H = tm.h $(tm_file_list) in TM_H = $(GTM_H) insn-flags.h $(OPTIONS_H) # Variables for version information. -BASEVER := $(srcdir)/BASE-VER # 4.x.y +BASEVER := $(srcdir)/BASE-VER # 5 +FULLVER := $(srcdir)/FULL-VER # 5.x.y DEVPHASE := $(srcdir)/DEV-PHASE # experimental, prerelease, "" DATESTAMP := $(srcdir)/DATESTAMP # YYYYMMDD or empty REVISION := $(srcdir)/REVISION # [BRANCH revision XXXXXX] BASEVER_c := $(shell cat $(BASEVER)) +FULLVER_c := $(shell cat $(FULLVER)) DEVPHASE_c := $(shell cat $(DEVPHASE)) DATESTAMP_c := $(shell cat $(DATESTAMP)) @@ -839,6 +841,7 @@ PATCHLEVEL_c := \ # immediately after the comma in the $(if ...) constructs is # significant - do not remove it. BASEVER_s := "\"$(BASEVER_c)\"" +FULLVER_s := "\"$(FULLVER_c)\"" DEVPHASE_s := "\"$(if $(DEVPHASE_c), ($(DEVPHASE_c)))\"" DATESTAMP_s := \ "\"$(if $(DEVPHASE_c)$(filter-out 0,$(PATCHLEVEL_c)), $(DATESTAMP_c))\"" @@ -2028,7 +2031,7 @@ s-options-h: optionlist $(srcdir)/opt-fu dumpvers: dumpvers.c -CFLAGS-version.o += -DBASEVER=$(BASEVER_s) -DDATESTAMP=$(DATESTAMP_s) \ +CFLAGS-version.o += -DBASEVER=$(FULLVER_s) -DDATESTAMP=$(DATESTAMP_s) \ -DREVISION=$(REVISION_s) \ -DDEVPHASE=$(DEVPHASE_s) -DPKGVERSION=$(PKGVERSION_s) \ -DBUGURL=$(BUGURL_s) @@ -2038,10 +2041,10 @@ version.o: $(REVISION) $(DATESTAMP) $(BA CFLAGS-lto-compress.o += $(ZLIBINC) bversion.h: s-bversion; @true -s-bversion: BASE-VER - echo "#define BUILDING_GCC_MAJOR `echo $(BASEVER_c) | sed -e 's/^\([0-9]*\).*$$/\1/'`" > bversion.h - echo "#define BUILDING_GCC_MINOR `echo $(BASEVER_c) | sed -e 's/^[0-9]*\.\([0-9]*\).*$$/\1/'`" >> bversion.h - echo "#define BUILDING_GCC_PATCHLEVEL `echo $(BASEVER_c) | sed -e 's/^[0-9]*\.[0-9]*\.\([0-9]*\)$$/\1/'`" >> bversion.h +s-bversion: FULL-VER + echo "#define BUILDING_GCC_MAJOR `echo $(FULLVER_c) | sed -e 's/^\([0-9]*\).*$$/\1/'`" > bversion.h + echo "#define BUILDING_GCC_MINOR `echo $(FULLVER_c) | sed -e 's/^[0-9]*\.\([0-9]*\).*$$/\1/'`" >> bversion.h + echo "#define BUILDING_GCC_PATCHLEVEL `echo $(FULLVER_c) | sed -e 's/^[0-9]*\.[0-9]*\.\([0-9]*\)$$/\1/'`" >> bversion.h echo "#define BUILDING_GCC_VERSION (BUILDING_GCC_MAJOR * 1000 + BUILDING_GCC_MINOR)" >> bversion.h $(STAMP) s-bversion @@ -2410,9 +2413,9 @@ build/%.o : # dependencies provided by ## build/version.o is compiled by the $(COMPILER_FOR_BUILD) but needs ## several C macro definitions, just like version.o build/version.o: version.c version.h \ - $(REVISION) $(DATESTAMP) $(BASEVER) $(DEVPHASE) + $(REVISION) $(DATESTAMP) $(FULLVER) $(DEVPHASE) $(COMPILER_FOR_BUILD) -c $(BUILD_COMPILERFLAGS) $(BUILD_CPPFLAGS) \ - -DBASEVER=$(BASEVER_s) -DDATESTAMP=$(DATESTAMP_s) \ + -DBASEVER=$(FULLVER_s) -DDATESTAMP=$(DATESTAMP_s) \ -DREVISION=$(REVISION_s) \ -DDEVPHASE=$(DEVPHASE_s) -DPKGVERSION=$(PKGVERSION_s) \ -DBUGURL=$(BUGURL_s) -o $@ $< @@ -2623,8 +2626,8 @@ PREPROCESSOR_DEFINES = \ -DSTANDARD_EXEC_PREFIX=\"$(libdir)/gcc/\" \ @TARGET_SYSTEM_ROOT_DEFINE@ -CFLAGS-cppbuiltin.o += $(PREPROCESSOR_DEFINES) -DBASEVER=$(BASEVER_s) -cppbuiltin.o: $(BASEVER) +CFLAGS-cppbuiltin.o += $(PREPROCESSOR_DEFINES) -DBASEVER=$(FULLVER_s) +cppbuiltin.o: $(FULLVER) CFLAGS-cppdefault.o += $(PREPROCESSOR_DEFINES) @@ -2640,8 +2643,8 @@ build/gcov-iov$(build_exeext): build/gco build/gcov-iov.o -o $@ gcov-iov.h: s-iov -s-iov: build/gcov-iov$(build_exeext) $(BASEVER) $(DEVPHASE) - build/gcov-iov$(build_exeext) '$(BASEVER_c)' '$(DEVPHASE_c)' \ +s-iov: build/gcov-iov$(build_exeext) $(FULLVER) $(DEVPHASE) + build/gcov-iov$(build_exeext) '$(FULLVER_c)' '$(DEVPHASE_c)' \ > tmp-gcov-iov.h $(SHELL) $(srcdir)/../move-if-change tmp-gcov-iov.h gcov-iov.h $(STAMP) s-iov Index: libjava/testsuite/lib/libjava.exp =================================================================== --- libjava/testsuite/lib/libjava.exp.orig 2014-12-02 13:29:22.487902351 +0100 +++ libjava/testsuite/lib/libjava.exp 2015-05-08 17:25:31.831833081 +0200 @@ -179,7 +179,7 @@ proc libjava_init { args } { set text [eval exec "$GCJ_UNDER_TEST -B$specdir -v 2>@ stdout"] regexp " version \[^\n\r\]*" $text version - set libjava_version [lindex $version 1] + set libjava_version 5 verbose "version: $libjava_version" Index: gcc/cppbuiltin.c =================================================================== --- gcc/cppbuiltin.c.orig 2015-01-12 16:22:34.486893087 +0100 +++ gcc/cppbuiltin.c 2015-05-08 17:25:31.832833089 +0200 @@ -46,9 +46,9 @@ parse_basever (int *major, int *minor, i static int s_major = -1, s_minor, s_patchlevel; if (s_major == -1) - if (sscanf (BASEVER, "%d.%d.%d", &s_major, &s_minor, &s_patchlevel) != 3) + if (sscanf (version_string, "%d.%d.%d", &s_major, &s_minor, &s_patchlevel) != 3) { - sscanf (BASEVER, "%d.%d", &s_major, &s_minor); + sscanf (version_string, "%d.%d", &s_major, &s_minor); s_patchlevel = 0; }