From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <pmatilai@redhat.com>
Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com [209.132.183.28])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 713CF58F4
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Fri, 20 Feb 2015 16:25:05 +0100 (CET)
Received: from int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com
 (int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.24])
 by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t1KFP30p014840
 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL);
 Fri, 20 Feb 2015 10:25:03 -0500
Received: from localhost.localdomain (vpn1-6-123.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.6.123])
 by int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id
 t1KFP1bF029575; Fri, 20 Feb 2015 10:25:02 -0500
Message-ID: <54E751CD.909@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2015 17:25:01 +0200
From: Panu Matilainen <pmatilai@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64;
 rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
References: <7a06a1e8019a40d4175c6bc2e1d7e62cf956b291.1424261465.git.pmatilai@redhat.com>
 <2614307.fg5h8BUtrJ@xps13>
In-Reply-To: <2614307.fg5h8BUtrJ@xps13>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.68 on 10.5.11.24
Cc: dev@dpdk.org
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] mk: Rework gcc version detection to permit
 versions newer than 4.x
X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2015 15:25:05 -0000

On 02/20/2015 04:04 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> Hi Panu,
>
> 2015-02-18 14:11, Panu Matilainen:
>> Separately comparing major and minor versions becomes seriously clumsy
>> when with major version changes, convert the entire version string into
>> a numeric value (ie 4.6.0 becomes 460 and 5.0.0 becomes 500) and use
>> that for comparisons. This simplifies the comparisons and makes
>> gcc 5.0 naturally recognized at least as capable as newest 4.x.
>>
>> This three-digit 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.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Panu Matilainen <pmatilai@redhat.com>
>
> Yes this version checking was totally buggy.
> Thanks for improving it.
>
> I have a comment about the conversion of old versions checks.
>
>> -ifneq ($(shell test $(GCC_MAJOR_VERSION) -le 4 -a $(GCC_MINOR_VERSION) -le 3 && echo 1), 1)
>> +ifneq ($(shell test $(GCC_VERSION) -le 430 && echo 1), 1)
>
> The previous check was a buggy "if not <= 4.3.x"
> Your check is "if not <= 4.3.0"
> So it's a bit different.

Ah, indeed. Thanks for pointing that out.

> And I think we should remove negation to make it simpler:
> 	"if >= 4.4.0"
>
> I have the same comment for other changes in the patch.

Ok, since the change seems welcome I'll fix/simplify the above cases and 
send a new version.

	- Panu -