https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97789
--- Comment #8 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #6)
>Maybe something like
>
> $ git rev-parse HEAD >> gcc/trunk.git/gcc/DATESTAMP
>
> would be enough to get it into the output of gcc -v.
For the record, my cur
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97789
--- Comment #7 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #6)
> (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #5)
> > Nice. Next time, please mention the exact revision you use.
>
> Will do, although I suspect mentioning 20201107 i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97789
--- Comment #6 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #5)
> Nice. Next time, please mention the exact revision you use.
Will do, although I suspect mentioning 20201107 in the compiler name
was a small clue.
For more pre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97789
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to David Binderman from comment #4)
> (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #3)
> > I can't reproduce that.
>
> Presumably you mean on today's compiler ?
Yes.
>
> Richard's change of Monday 9 No
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97789
--- Comment #4 from David Binderman ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #3)
> I can't reproduce that.
Presumably you mean on today's compiler ?
Richard's change of Monday 9 November seemingly fixes it.
I'll check this on next Friday's va
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97789
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97789
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97789
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-11-11
Status|UNCONFIRM
