[committed,gcc-5-branch] Set DEV-PHASE to prerelease

Hi,

I checked this patch into gcc-5-branch.


H.J.
---

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

> Index: ChangeLog
> ===================================================================
> --- ChangeLog	(revision 222386)
> +++ ChangeLog	(working copy)
> @@ -1,3 +1,7 @@
> +2015-04-23  H.J. Lu  <hongjiu.lu@intel.com>
> +
> +	* DEV-PHASE: Set to prerelease.
> +
>  2015-04-23  Bill Schmidt  <wschmidt@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>  
>  	Backport from mainline r222349
> Index: DEV-PHASE
> ===================================================================
> --- DEV-PHASE	(revision 222386)
> +++ DEV-PHASE	(working copy)
> @@ -0,0 +1 @@
> +prerelease

	Jakub

On Fri, 24 Apr 2015, Jakub Jelinek wrote:

> 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

Yes.  Please revert.

In future please don't do this kind of changes as non-RM without
approval.

Thanks,
Richard.

> > Index: ChangeLog
> > ===================================================================
> > --- ChangeLog	(revision 222386)
> > +++ ChangeLog	(working copy)
> > @@ -1,3 +1,7 @@
> > +2015-04-23  H.J. Lu  <hongjiu.lu@intel.com>
> > +
> > +	* DEV-PHASE: Set to prerelease.
> > +
> >  2015-04-23  Bill Schmidt  <wschmidt@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> >  
> >  	Backport from mainline r222349
> > Index: DEV-PHASE
> > ===================================================================
> > --- DEV-PHASE	(revision 222386)
> > +++ DEV-PHASE	(working copy)
> > @@ -0,0 +1 @@
> > +prerelease
> 
> 	Jakub
> 
>

Jakub Jelinek <jakub@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.

	Rainer

On Mon, May 04, 2015 at 11:13:51AM +0200, Rainer Orth wrote:
> Jakub Jelinek <jakub@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

	Jakub

On Mon, 4 May 2015, Jakub Jelinek wrote:

> On Mon, May 04, 2015 at 11:13:51AM +0200, Rainer Orth wrote:
> > Jakub Jelinek <jakub@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.