On Mon, May 04, 2015 at 11:13:51AM +0200, Rainer Orth wrote:
> Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> writes:
>
> > On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 04:31:52PM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I checked this patch into gcc-5-branch.
> >
> > That's wrong according to https://gcc.gnu.org/develop.html#num_scheme
>
> HJ has a point, though: with DEV-PHASE remaining empty, all post-5.1.0
> versions of gcc identify as 5.1.1, with no way of telling them apart,
> like datestamp and revison.
That suggests we should change
DATESTAMP_s := "\"$(if $(DEVPHASE_c), $(DATESTAMP_c))\""
so that it would expand to DATESTAMP_c also if DEVPHASE_c is empty,
but BASEVER_c does not end with .0
Jakub
