From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Panu Matilainen Subject: Re: [PATCH] mk: Work around Debian/Ubuntu-specific 'gcc -dumpversion' output Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2015 13:21:49 +0200 Message-ID: <54EC5ECD.4060707@redhat.com> References: <7529e243896615deb7d93e6080dfd2aced92bf86.1424774816.git.pmatilai@redhat.com> <54EC5D20.9090807@6wind.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "dev-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org" To: Olivier MATZ , David Marchand Return-path: In-Reply-To: <54EC5D20.9090807-pdR9zngts4EAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org Sender: "dev" On 02/24/2015 01:14 PM, Olivier MATZ wrote: > Hi Panu, David, > > On 02/24/2015 11:59 AM, David Marchand wrote: >>> >Commit 71f0ab1849b4fc3ca928deb566df12ca725ed150 broke compilation >>> >on some versions of Debian and Ubuntu where gcc has been modified >>> >to only emit MAJOR.MINOR part of the version from 'gcc -dumpversion'. >>> >Drop the micro-version from gcc version comparisons to work around >>> >this, it wasn't being used for anything anyway. >>> > >>> >Signed-off-by: Panu Matilainen >> >> ack (and works with my debian gcc). >> > > One question: will it work with a version like with 2 digits > for major or minor like 4.10.0 or 10.0.0? > (or maybe it cannot happen with gcc naming conventions?) The original change mentions this: This [...] scheme would run into trouble if gcc ever went to two-digit version segments, but that hasn't happened in the last 10+ years so it seems like a safe assumption. ...but that's not entirely accurate, 4.10.0 would be a problem but 10.0.0 not. - Panu -