On Fri, Aug 09, 2013 at 01:18:30PM +0200, Lubos Lunak wrote:
On Friday 09 of August 2013, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
New commits:
commit 91ec774c9fff46af6800e75315561e86167fe5d1
Author: Lionel Elie Mamane <lionel@mamane.lu>
Date: Fri Aug 9 10:28:51 2013 +0200
$CC --version is too unstructured
Give up and revert to "$CC -dumpversion".
Since by now no test now refers to patchlevel, make it unavailable in
GCCVER so that nobody tries to use it.
Seeing all these commits about checking GCC version, does it
actually make sense to do such checks?
It seems that most usages of such checks were eradicated, latest by
commit 1e0feb5cf916fada5dc2db66a358649624ece578
Author: Luboš Luňák <l.lunak@suse.cz>
Date: Fri Aug 2 14:18:22 2013 +0200
do not base feature checks on gcc version
I had the first patch of these series in my local tree "for a long
time" (before your commit above), because I-don't-remember-what-bad
happened because my gcc was detected as being 4.7.0 instead of
4.7.2. Today I fatefully decided to push it...
Concretely, we have only *two* places where that information is used:
- check that version is at least 4.0.0 (line 2936)
- test for thread-safe statics
I guess we can drop the test for >= 4.0.0 altogether. So, if "someone"
rewrites the thread-safe statics test to not use GCCVER, we can bin
this whole "GCC version" definition.
--
Lionel
Context
Privacy Policy |
Impressum (Legal Info) |
Copyright information: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images
on this website are licensed under the
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License.
This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is
licensed under the Mozilla Public License (
MPLv2).
"LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are
registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are
in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective
logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use
thereof is explained in our
trademark policy.