The current "gcc --version" prints out
gcc (GCC) 4.1.0 20051113 (experimental)
Copyright (C) 2005 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software; see the source for copying conditions. There is
NO
warranty; not even for MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR
PURPOSE.
Can we change it
On Nov 14, 2005, at 9:14 AM, H. J. Lu wrote:
Can we change it to something like
gcc (GCC) 4.1.0 20051113 (revision 106863) (experimental)
Doesn't work, unless you also have the branch name. Further, the
substitutions that svn can do, doesn't allow for the above, and they
don't want to `fi
On Mon, Nov 14, 2005 at 12:52:49PM -0800, Mike Stump wrote:
> On Nov 14, 2005, at 9:14 AM, H. J. Lu wrote:
> >Can we change it to something like
> >
> >gcc (GCC) 4.1.0 20051113 (revision 106863) (experimental)
>
> Doesn't work, unless you also have the branch name. Further, the
> substitutions
On Mon, Nov 14, 2005 at 02:05:47PM -0800, H. J. Lu wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 14, 2005 at 12:52:49PM -0800, Mike Stump wrote:
> > On Nov 14, 2005, at 9:14 AM, H. J. Lu wrote:
> > >Can we change it to something like
> > >
> > >gcc (GCC) 4.1.0 20051113 (revision 106863) (experimental)
> >
> > Doesn't work
H. J. Lu wrote:
On Mon, Nov 14, 2005 at 02:05:47PM -0800, H. J. Lu wrote:
On Mon, Nov 14, 2005 at 12:52:49PM -0800, Mike Stump wrote:
On Nov 14, 2005, at 9:14 AM, H. J. Lu wrote:
Can we change it to something like
gcc (GCC) 4.1.0 20051113 (revision 106863) (experimental)
Doesn't work, un
On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 03:00:10PM -0800, David Daney wrote:
> H. J. Lu wrote:
> >On Mon, Nov 14, 2005 at 02:05:47PM -0800, H. J. Lu wrote:
> >
> >>On Mon, Nov 14, 2005 at 12:52:49PM -0800, Mike Stump wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Nov 14, 2005, at 9:14 AM, H. J. Lu wrote:
> >>>
> Can we change it to some
H. J. Lu wrote:
On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 03:00:10PM -0800, David Daney wrote:
H. J. Lu wrote:
On Mon, Nov 14, 2005 at 02:05:47PM -0800, H. J. Lu wrote:
On Mon, Nov 14, 2005 at 12:52:49PM -0800, Mike Stump wrote:
On Nov 14, 2005, at 9:14 AM, H. J. Lu wrote:
Can we change it to somethin
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
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-bra
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
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
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
> 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.
I think this is a good idea (and don't mind the idea of `svn status'
being run from gcc_update to do so), but I won
On Fri, Dec 16, 2005 at 03:58:05PM +1100, Ben Elliston 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.
>
> I think this is a good idea (and don't mind
> 1. contrib/gcc_update creates gcc/REVISION with branch name and
> revision number.
> 2. If gcc/REVISION exists, it will be used in gcc/version.c.
>
> With those 2 patches, I got
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] gcc]$ ./xgcc --version
> xgcc (GCC) 4.1.0 (gcc-4_1-branch revision 108596) 20051215 (prerelease
On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 06:35:29PM -0500, 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
On Fri, Dec 16, 2005 at 12:07:54PM +0100, Volker Reichelt wrote:
> > 1. contrib/gcc_update creates gcc/REVISION with branch name and
> > revision number.
> > 2. If gcc/REVISION exists, it will be used in gcc/version.c.
> >
> > With those 2 patches, I got
> >
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] gcc]$ ./xgcc --v
On Fri, 2005-12-16 at 05:02, H. J. Lu wrote:
>
> In my patch, gcc/REVISION is created by gcc_update. If you don't use
> gcc_update, gcc/REVISION may not be there.
>
> In any case, when we agree on what to put in gcc/REVISION, I can
> provide a new patch.
Maybe we should just set up the commit f
On Mon, Dec 19, 2005 at 01:26:18PM +, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-12-16 at 05:02, H. J. Lu wrote:
>
> >
> > In my patch, gcc/REVISION is created by gcc_update. If you don't use
> > gcc_update, gcc/REVISION may not be there.
> >
> > In any case, when we agree on what to put in gcc/
Subversion provides an "opt-in" version of keyword substitution, and
provides a $Revision$ keyword. It might take a little scriptery to
get that into the form GCC wants.
http://svnbook.red-bean.com/nightly/en/svn.advanced.props.html#svn.advanced.props.special.keywords
On Dec 19, 2005, at 2:56 PM, Jim Blandy wrote:
Subversion provides an "opt-in" version of keyword substitution, and
provides a $Revision$ keyword.
But it doesn't do what people really want it to by design. :-(
On 12/19/05, Mike Stump <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Dec 19, 2005, at 2:56 PM, Jim Blandy wrote:
> > Subversion provides an "opt-in" version of keyword substitution, and
> > provides a $Revision$ keyword.
>
> But it doesn't do what people really want it to by design. :-(
And that would be?
On Dec 19, 2005, at 5:34 PM, Jim Blandy wrote:
On 12/19/05, Mike Stump <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
But it doesn't do what people really want it to by design. :-(
And that would be?
http://subversion.tigris.org/faq.html#version-value-in-source
I would like something, that substitutes automat
On Mon, Dec 19, 2005 at 02:56:43PM -0800, Jim Blandy wrote:
> Subversion provides an "opt-in" version of keyword substitution, and
> provides a $Revision$ keyword. It might take a little scriptery to
> get that into the form GCC wants.
>
> http://svnbook.red-bean.com/nightly/en/svn.advanced.props
On Mon, Dec 19, 2005 at 06:04:46PM -0800, Mike Stump wrote:
> On Dec 19, 2005, at 5:34 PM, Jim Blandy wrote:
> >On 12/19/05, Mike Stump <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>But it doesn't do what people really want it to by design. :-(
> >
> >And that would be?
>
> http://subversion.tigris.org/faq.html
Okay, I see. Yes, there really ought to be an easy way to provide
enough information to reproduce the tree, and $Revision$ isn't it.
26 matches
Mail list logo
