From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Tim Deegan <tim@xen.org>
Subject: Re: compiling error "xen-unstable.hg"
Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2012 11:53:16 +0100
Message-ID: <20120802105316.GC11437@ocelot.phlegethon.org>
References: <1343373880839-5710388.post@n5.nabble.com>
	<501265C60200007800090E27@nat28.tlf.novell.com>
	<1343380992.326297641@f89.mail.ru>
	<5012863B0200007800090EC1@nat28.tlf.novell.com>
	<1343384738.6812.146.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com>
	<50128BD70200007800090F11@nat28.tlf.novell.com>
	<50127463.6000109@ts.fujitsu.com>
	<20120727202913.GB23990@ocelot.phlegethon.org>
	<5016539D020000780009134A@nat28.tlf.novell.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <5016539D020000780009134A@nat28.tlf.novell.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>
Cc: Juergen Gross <juergen.gross@ts.fujitsu.com>, xen-devel <xen-devel@lists.xen.org>, Yuriy Logvinov <hackroute@mail.ru>, Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@citrix.com>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

At 08:27 +0100 on 30 Jul (1343636877), Jan Beulich wrote:
> > We might do better to switch to '$(CC) --version | head -1', which seems
> > to provide something sensible on all the gcc and clang binaries I have
> > handy. 
> 
> The question is how relevant that string is in the first place:
> My cross compilers, for example, get invoked through a shell
> scripts that's named gccx. Invoking that with --version
> reproduces the shell script name (which the script forces as
> the argv[0] of the exec-ed "real" gcc):
> 
> gccx (GCC) 4.7.1
> 
> which isn't the case for -v:
> 
> gcc version 4.7.1 (GCC)

Sigh.  

> So as long as no deeper meaning is implied from the string by
> anyone (there's nothing in-tree that I'm aware of), I think
> that's at least as good a change as adding LC_ALL=C (of
> which I'm not really certain whether it would be fully reliable
> in all possible cases).

I'm not aware of anyone/anything that relies on that string except for
human consumption.  I'll submit a patch to change to --version. 

Cheers,

Tim.