From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9399 invoked by alias); 9 Jun 2004 19:34:23 -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 9379 invoked from network); 9 Jun 2004 19:34:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 9 Jun 2004 19:34:22 -0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i59JYKi7027100 for ; Wed, 9 Jun 2004 15:34:20 -0400 Received: from localhost.redhat.com (porkchop.devel.redhat.com [172.16.58.2]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i59JYJ019700; Wed, 9 Jun 2004 15:34:19 -0400 Received: from gnu.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BBEB2B9D; Wed, 9 Jun 2004 15:34:10 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <40C76632.7060308@gnu.org> Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2004 19:34:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-GB; rv:1.4.1) Gecko/20040217 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Michael Elizabeth Chastain Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [patch/rfc;testsuite] Append patchlevel to compiler_info References: <20040609192405.712044B104@berman.michael-chastain.com> In-Reply-To: <20040609192405.712044B104@berman.michael-chastain.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2004-06/txt/msg00188.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. True. > Can you do a before-and-after test with gcc 2.95.3 and with some > version of gcc 3.X ? I've already done that. > 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. I was thinking more of changing ``gcc-*-*'' to ``gcc-*''. > 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-". It works as is, however I can append "-unknown" - I suspect that's better than the ucase "-UNKNOWN". Andrew