Rob Stewart wrote:
From: Jonathan Wakely
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.
What's to stop any compiler from using a 3 digit version number sometime in the future? Yes, GCC has moved on to 4.x, so there's no 3.x version even close to that, and there aren't likely to be (m)any more 2.x releases, but if you are going to choose a convention, it ought to account for forseeable problems, right?
The ability to accommodate these unlikely scenarios has to be balanced against usability. If a test for GCC with major version < 3 has to use "3000000," chances are good that a test will be misspelled and a needed workaround will not be applied. Jonathan