From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23559 invoked by alias); 9 Jun 2004 19:24:23 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 23237 invoked from network); 9 Jun 2004 19:24:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO tisch.mail.mindspring.net) (207.69.200.157) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 9 Jun 2004 19:24:09 -0000 Received: from user-119a90a.biz.mindspring.com ([66.149.36.10] helo=berman.michael-chastain.com) by tisch.mail.mindspring.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 1BY8g9-0004wI-00; Wed, 09 Jun 2004 15:24:05 -0400 Received: by berman.michael-chastain.com (Postfix, from userid 502) id 712044B104; Wed, 9 Jun 2004 15:24:05 -0400 (EDT) To: cagney@gnu.org, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, mec.gnu@mindspring.com Subject: Re: [patch/rfc;testsuite] Append patchlevel to compiler_info Message-Id: <20040609192405.712044B104@berman.michael-chastain.com> Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2004 19:24:00 -0000 From: mec.gnu@mindspring.com (Michael Elizabeth Chastain) X-SW-Source: 2004-06/txt/msg00187.txt.bz2 This is good. I think it needs a comment that gcc supports __GNUC_PATCHLEVEL__ starting with gcc 3.0, so that we know how long we need to keep the conditional logic. Can you do a before-and-after test with gcc 2.95.3 and with some version of gcc 3.X ? I expect that all the "gcc-2-*" and "gcc-*-*" will continue to work but that really needs testing. They can be improved to "gcc-2-*-*" and "gcc-*-*-*" later. Hmmm, come to think of it, I don't know if "gcc-*-*-*" will match "gcc-2-95-". How about if you make the unknown case "gcc-X-Y-UNKNOWN" instead of "gcc-X-Y-". Michael C 2004-06-09 Andrew Cagney * lib/compiler.cc, lib/compiler.c: Append __GNUC_PATCHLEVEL__ to the compiler_info. * gdb.base/structs.exp (test_struct_calls): Check for gcc-3-3-* instead of gcc-3-3.