Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin@cygwin.com Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 12:09:08 -0400 From: Christopher Faylor To: cygwin@cygwin.com Subject: Re: gcc version : 3.2 or 3.2-3 ? Message-ID: <20030429160908.GA14351@redhat.com> Reply-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com References: <006701c30e43$07449a40$78d96f83@pomello> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i On Tue, Apr 29, 2003 at 06:47:55PM +0300, Alex Vinokur wrote: >"Max Bowsher" wrote in message news:006701c30e43$07449a40$78d96f83@pomello... >> Alex Vinokur wrote: >> > gcc -v indicate version 3.2 but not 3.2-3 (!?) >> >> Ugh, this is becoming a FAQ. >> >> 3.2-3 means VERSION = 3.2, CYGWIN-SPECIFIC-RELEASE = 3 >> >> No packaging system that I know of attempts to insert its release number >> into the version output of executables. > >For instance, DJGPP : > >% gcc -v > >Reading specs from c:/djgpp/lib/gcc-lib/djgpp/3.21/specs >Configured with: /devel/gnu/gcc/3.2/gnu/gcc-3.21/configure i586-pc-msdosdjgpp --prefix=/dev/env/DJDIR --disable-nls >Thread model: single >gcc version 3.2.1 // __GNUC__, __GNUC_MINOR__, __GNUC_PATCHLEVEL__ So are you agreeing or disputing? The above is clearly gcc 3.2.1. Cygwin's version of gcc is 3.2 . This isn't worth discussing. We're not going to be putting the -x release numbers into the gcc version string so let's all move along now. One discussion like this in a seven day period is enough. cgf -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/