| Message ID | CAMe9rOqO6fCRG6wCLzJet+c_2gA=V5y_YPVpCbzY-qLdPTQuDQ@mail.gmail.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
On May 12, 2015 5:58:07 PM GMT+02:00, "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com> wrote: >On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 8:28 AM, Michael Matz <matz@suse.de> wrote: >> 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 > >So? Doesn't post-release display the svn revision.for gcc -v, which >gcc -v doesn't display today? Something like this > >diff --git a/gcc/DEV-PHASE b/gcc/DEV-PHASE >index e69de29..ee176f8 100644 >--- a/gcc/DEV-PHASE >+++ b/gcc/DEV-PHASE >@@ -0,0 +1 @@ >+post-release Printing post-release doesn't add any information. I believe Jakub fixed the missing svn revision printing already. Richard. > >> 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 Tue, May 12, 2015 at 9:09 AM, Richard Biener <richard.guenther@gmail.com> wrote: > On May 12, 2015 5:58:07 PM GMT+02:00, "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com> wrote: >>On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 8:28 AM, Michael Matz <matz@suse.de> wrote: >>> 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 >> >>So? Doesn't post-release display the svn revision.for gcc -v, which >>gcc -v doesn't display today? Something like this >> >>diff --git a/gcc/DEV-PHASE b/gcc/DEV-PHASE >>index e69de29..ee176f8 100644 >>--- a/gcc/DEV-PHASE >>+++ b/gcc/DEV-PHASE >>@@ -0,0 +1 @@ >>+post-release > > Printing post-release doesn't add any information. I believe Jakub fixed the missing svn revision printing already. > What is the real benefit of your patch?
On May 12, 2015 6:11:45 PM GMT+02:00, "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com> wrote: >On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 9:09 AM, Richard Biener ><richard.guenther@gmail.com> wrote: >> On May 12, 2015 5:58:07 PM GMT+02:00, "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com> >wrote: >>>On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 8:28 AM, Michael Matz <matz@suse.de> wrote: >>>> 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 >>> >>>So? Doesn't post-release display the svn revision.for gcc -v, which >>>gcc -v doesn't display today? Something like this >>> >>>diff --git a/gcc/DEV-PHASE b/gcc/DEV-PHASE >>>index e69de29..ee176f8 100644 >>>--- a/gcc/DEV-PHASE >>>+++ b/gcc/DEV-PHASE >>>@@ -0,0 +1 @@ >>>+post-release >> >> Printing post-release doesn't add any information. I believe Jakub >fixed the missing svn revision printing already. >> > >What is the real benefit of your patch? It keeps an unchanging directory structure for the whole GCC 5 series (also requested by customers in the past). I've been asked to post the patch I am using for this. Previous discussion concluded that we want a configury to control this. Richard.
On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 9:32 AM, Richard Biener <rguenther@suse.de> wrote: > On May 12, 2015 6:11:45 PM GMT+02:00, "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com> wrote: >>On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 9:09 AM, Richard Biener >><richard.guenther@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On May 12, 2015 5:58:07 PM GMT+02:00, "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com> >>wrote: >>>>On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 8:28 AM, Michael Matz <matz@suse.de> wrote: >>>>> 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 >>>> >>>>So? Doesn't post-release display the svn revision.for gcc -v, which >>>>gcc -v doesn't display today? Something like this >>>> >>>>diff --git a/gcc/DEV-PHASE b/gcc/DEV-PHASE >>>>index e69de29..ee176f8 100644 >>>>--- a/gcc/DEV-PHASE >>>>+++ b/gcc/DEV-PHASE >>>>@@ -0,0 +1 @@ >>>>+post-release >>> >>> Printing post-release doesn't add any information. I believe Jakub >>fixed the missing svn revision printing already. >>> >> >>What is the real benefit of your patch? > > It keeps an unchanging directory structure for the whole GCC 5 series (also requested by customers in the past). I've been asked to post the patch I am using for this. Previous discussion concluded that we want a configury to control this. Why do we have to change directory structure on GCC 5 branch? Is there a GCC bug for this request?
On Tue, 12 May 2015, H.J. Lu wrote: > On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 9:32 AM, Richard Biener <rguenther@suse.de> wrote: > > On May 12, 2015 6:11:45 PM GMT+02:00, "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com> wrote: > >>On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 9:09 AM, Richard Biener > >><richard.guenther@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> On May 12, 2015 5:58:07 PM GMT+02:00, "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com> > >>wrote: > >>>>On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 8:28 AM, Michael Matz <matz@suse.de> wrote: > >>>>> 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 > >>>> > >>>>So? Doesn't post-release display the svn revision.for gcc -v, which > >>>>gcc -v doesn't display today? Something like this > >>>> > >>>>diff --git a/gcc/DEV-PHASE b/gcc/DEV-PHASE > >>>>index e69de29..ee176f8 100644 > >>>>--- a/gcc/DEV-PHASE > >>>>+++ b/gcc/DEV-PHASE > >>>>@@ -0,0 +1 @@ > >>>>+post-release > >>> > >>> Printing post-release doesn't add any information. I believe Jakub > >>fixed the missing svn revision printing already. > >>> > >> > >>What is the real benefit of your patch? > > > > It keeps an unchanging directory structure for the whole GCC 5 series (also requested by customers in the past). I've been asked to post the patch I am using for this. Previous discussion concluded that we want a configury to control this. > > Why do we have to change directory structure on GCC 5 branch? > Is there a GCC bug for this request? We don't have to do this and we definitely are not going to change the default. Richard.
diff --git a/gcc/DEV-PHASE b/gcc/DEV-PHASE index e69de29..ee176f8 100644 --- a/gcc/DEV-PHASE +++ b/gcc/DEV-PHASE @@ -0,0 +1 @@ +post-release