From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar) To: dewar@gnat.com, law@redhat.com Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org, kenner@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu, rms@gnu.org, rth@cygnus.com Subject: Re: Why not gnat Ada in gcc? Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2000 19:54:00 -0000 Message-id: <20001102035442.3BA9F34D82@nile.gnat.com> X-SW-Source: 2000-11/msg00080.html <> No one said anything of the kind. What we said is that we cannot possibly deal with the kind of instability that we see daily in the open gcc tree as the base for the version we provide to customers. And I must say I am equally dumbfounded by the claim that Cygnus has always provided to its customers the current open tree, that's certainly not my understanding! Noone is saying that the internal ACT build is "the official FSF GNU Ada", it is simply what we provide for our customers. Indeed one important service we provide our customers is precisely a guarantee that they get a very carefully quality assured version of the compiler, even if they are getting a daily wavefront build. Patches and major modifications to the open tree will come from whoever develops such changes. For the immediate future, most such changes will clearly come from ACT, if and when others contribute, changes will come from them. I am completely at a loss to understand what Jeff's concerns here are. He seems to be fulminating away, objecting to the attempt to make the GNAT development more open. Well I must say, I think it makes sense to proceed along these lines anyway, and we certainly intend to do so. Yes, certainly there may be cases where significant new developments are done in increments that make sense (the sudden appearence of the ia32 port was after all a spectacular case of that happening for gcc, I would certainly hope that we would have *nothing* like that happeniung in the GNAT case, it seems VERY unfortunate to me to get major out-of-the- blue changes of this kind, and I think that should be avoided in future.