X-pop3-spooler: POP3MAIL 2.1.0 b 4 980420 -bs-
From: Colin Douglas Howell <howell AT CS DOT Stanford DOT EDU>
Message-Id: <199810050438.VAA16056@Sunburn.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Discrepancy between egcs-19980921 snapshot and pgcc diff
To: pcg AT goof DOT com (Marc Lehmann)
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1998 21:38:31 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: howell AT CS DOT Stanford DOT EDU
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: Marc Lehmann <pcg AT goof DOT com>
Status: RO
X-Status: A
Content-Length: 1841
Lines: 38

I just applied the pgcc-19980921 diff (obtained directly from your
website) to the egcs-19980921 snapshot (obtained from go.cygnus.com, a
Stanford-based mirror of the egcs snapshot repository).  There is one
tiny discrepancy between them which causes a reject of gcc/version.c
when the patch is applied (I got no other rejects):

[howell AT howell egcs-19980921]$ cat gcc/version.c.orig 
char *version_string = "egcs-2.92.11 19980921 (gcc2 ss-980609 experimental)";
[howell AT howell egcs-19980921]$ cat gcc/version.c.rej 
***************
*** 1 ****
- char *version_string = "egcs-2.92.09 19980921 (gcc2 ss-980609 experimental)";
--- 1 ----
+ char *version_string = "pgcc-2.92.09 19980921 (gcc2 ss-980609 experimental)";

I don't know if this matters, but it does imply that your patch was
actually for egcs-2.92.09, a slightly earlier version of the egcs
snapshot than was actually released.

According to the egcs CVS tree, gcc/version.c was updated to reflect
version number 2.92.09 on "Mon Sep 21 9:27:22 PDT 1998".  The last
version number bump to gcc/version.c before the snapshot was released
was on "Mon Sep 21 23:40:38 PDT 1998".  While I have no way of knowing
what time you got the snapshot, there were definitely some code
changes applied during those intervening 14 hours.

Could there have been some changes in the final egcs-19980921 snapshot
which might possibly screw up the patch?  I haven't seen any problems,
since I haven't even *built* the patched version, much less used it,
but I thought you would want to know.

My apologies if you've heard about this already.

-- 
Colin Douglas Howell                    Systems Administrator
e-mail:  howell AT cs DOT stanford DOT edu         Computer Facilities Group
office:  (650) 723-2491                 Computer Science Department
                                        Stanford University