On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 6:42 AM, Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de> wrote: > > I promised to send out my pat^Whack. Before building I introduce > gcc/FULL-VER as copy of gcc/BASE-VER and adjust gcc/BASE-VER to > just the major number. Then I only need the following small > patch (where I don't speak enough tcl for fixing libjava.exp "properly"). > > Without the FULL-VER trick the patch would be much larger (BASE-VER > is referenced a lot). For a "real" patch (including configury) we > probably want to generate a BASE-VER in the toplevel (or have > a @BASE-VER@ substitute). >
What is wrong to print "prerelease" with "gcc -v" on GCC 5 branch? If it isn't a prerelease, what is it? And let's call it what it is. -- H.J.
