From: Jonathan Wakely <cow@compsoc.man.ac.uk>
On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 10:55:37AM -0400, Rob Stewart wrote:
From: David Abrahams <dave@boost-consulting.com>
Edward Diener <eddielee@tropicsoft.com> writes:
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.
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? -- Rob Stewart stewart@sig.com Software Engineer http://www.sig.com Susquehanna International Group, LLP using std::disclaimer;