From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: kenner@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu (Richard Kenner)
To: law@redhat.com
Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: Why not gnat Ada in gcc?
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2000 04:56:00 -0000
Message-id: <10011021311.AA08173@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu>
X-SW-Source: 2000-11/msg00131.html

    Then can you see that if the ACT tree isn't the official GNU Ada tree
    that the official FSF GNU Ada has to be somewhere else?  And that
    somehow you have to manage the process of dealing with changes from
    multiple sources?  And that the burden for managing those changes has
    to fall on ACT, not the other developers?

I'm not aware of anybody that disagrees with *any* of the above statements;
certainly Robert and I don't.  I think you're raising a strawman here.

    ie, let's assume that for some reason I need to make a series of
    changes to the GNU Ada sources due to changes elsewhere in the
    compiler.  It will be ACT's responsibility to make sure those changes
    get into ACT's repository and that ACT does not clobber those changes
    when ACT wants to install some of their changes into the GNU
    repository?

Right, but note that such changes would be in the "gigi" part of GNAT,
not in the main compiler sources (which operate on a Ada-specific node
structure).

    What makes you think the ia32 port came out of the blue?  

I think that a lot of the "ia32" references have been typos for "ia64".