On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 06:03:25PM -0800, David Daney wrote: > H. J. Lu wrote: > >On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 04:09:41PM -0800, David Daney wrote: > > > >>Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > >> > >>>On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 03:00:10PM -0800, David Daney wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>>>I like this, but what if you also did an svn status to see if there > >>>>were any modifications WRT the branch/revision and then add either > >>>>'clean' or 'modified' to the information. > >>>> > >>>>So you would get (gcc-4_1-branch revision 108596 modified) or > >>>>(gcc-4_1-branch revision 108596 clean) > >>> > >>> > >>>I think we already had this discussion and decided that svn status took > >>>too long in many cases. > >>> > >> > >>Maybe have a configure option to disable svn status and return 'unknown' > >>if you disable the svn status part. > > > > > >Did you mean something like > > > >./contrib/gcc_update --disable-svn-status > > > >I can certainly do that. > > > > > > No I meant from the top level configure. Something like this: > > ../gcc/configure --disable-svn-status-in-gcc-version-string > --other-configure-parameters
"svn status" is invoked from ./contrib/gcc_update. It has nothing to do with gcc/configure. My patches have 2 parts: 1. ./contrib/gcc_update puts svn information in gcc/REVISION. 2. ./gcc/Makefile.in uses gcc/REVISION if it exists since gcc/REVISION may not exist if gcc source isn't updated with ./contrib/gcc_update. H.J.
