------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-02 13:30 ------- (In reply to comment #5) > Well, it is not 4.0.2, as 4.0.2 has not been released. FSF version.c contains > prerelease string which somewhat explains that it is really not yet official > 4.0.2, but we use the version also for rpm version where claiming the > compiler is > 4.0.2 would be misleading. It is something between 4.0.1 and 4.0.2. > For any RH version.c, the date printed is the date of merge from the > corresponding upstream gcc-X_Y-branch which is I guess the most important > info for you.
Actually using 4.0.1 is more confusing to everyone or at least to me. The point is using 4.0.2 is like everyone else does and for a reason. It is based off of a FSF CVS after 4.0.1 was released and not on 4.0.1 itself. Seeing 4.0.1 I just tested a 4.0.2 (from about a week or so ago) which I had lying around. Just change it to 4.0.2 like everyone else and then when anyone sees 4.0.2, they will go and test a recent 4.0.2 instead of a 4.0.2 which was a couple weeks old. Anyways this is a discussion should really be internal to redhat since it was their fuck which made me make the mistake. -- What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Known to work|4.0.0 4.1.0 |4.0.0 4.1.0 4.0.1 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23691