Chandler Carruth wrote: > There is no GCC version 6.0.00. That doesn't even make sense as a version > number. >
Yeah, you shouldn't pay attention to the number that Ron is speaking about: it's just an example with three random numbers x.y.z. > I think that if you want to deeply change the versions used by clang in > this way for a single product you are shipping, you should do so > out-of-tree. Having these macros in the tree complicates the code, and > makes it more likely that distributions or packagers will (correctly or > incorrectly) override them. When that happens, bug reports and issues with > upstream Clang become harder to understand and diagnose. I don't think this will ever be an issue. In the case of GCC, almost every linux distro and company releasing GCC toolchains have their own patches on top of the code of GCC. Users of these GCC distributions are directed to submit bug reports to the linux distro or company that released the code, and not to GCC's bugzilla. In the rear occasions a bug is directed to GCC's bugzilla, and is identified to fail only for a specific vendor toolchain, the bug is taken care of by the organization who released the code. >From this perspective it is a good thing to be able to identify these compilers with a name and version different than that of llvm.org. In case a bug is reported against a version that is not released by llvm.org, the bug should be rerouted to the organization that released that code. Sebastian -- Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@cs.uiuc.edu http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
