From: Jonathan Wakely (cow_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-07-12 10:33:02
On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 10:55:37AM -0400, Rob Stewart wrote:
> From: David Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]>
> > Edward Diener <eddielee_at_[hidden]> writes:
> >
> > Okay, I understand what you're driving at. I'm not sure if going down
> > this road is worth the trouble, but if it is, I'd rather see a
> > standard system for referring to versions numerically. So, for
> > example:
> >
> > Version Value
> > ------- -----
> > 6.0 060000
> > 6.0sp5 060005
> > 7.0 070000
> > 7.1 070100
> > 5.3.4 050304
> > 3.4.3 030403
> > 2.95.3 029503
>
> You probably need to allow another digit for each field. 95 is
> awfully close to rolling over to three digits.
I think that's why it was chosen, and it's VERY unlikely there'll be any
more GCC 2.x releases. RedHat shipped a modified GCC with version number
2.96, but I'll bet bread there won't be a 2.100
So if GCC 2.95 is the only version number close to 3 digits, I don't
think you need to worry about running out of digits.
jon