From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Zack Weinberg <zack@codesourcery.com>
To: Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de>
Cc: dewar@gnat.com, bosch@gnat.com, gcc@gcc.gnu.org, kenner@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu
Subject: Re: Ada files now checked in
Date: Sat, 06 Oct 2001 10:54:00 -0000
Message-id: <20011006105450.X9432@codesourcery.com>
References: <20011006165846.71996F28CA@nile.gnat.com> <87n134hcbr.fsf@deneb.enyo.de>
X-SW-Source: 2001-10/msg00426.html

On Sat, Oct 06, 2001 at 08:07:20PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> dewar@gnat.com writes:
> 
> > <<What, you want to keep the Ada tools around as well as the C or Perl
> > ones?  That would be silly.  We only need one version.
> > >>
> >
> > See previous message, I potentially agree for C, but disagree for Perl, we
> > don't want to intodruce another language into our build environment at
> > ACT just for this purpose, especially if it is Perl :-)
> 
> I don't see the problem with Ada tools for these particular files.
> Only people who actually change the compiler need these tools, and
> since they are platform-independent, the generated files can be
> shipped together with the source code.

The problem is that they shouldn't be in CVS and shouldn't be
generated into the source directory, because this causes tons of
other problems.

> The other build problem (different compiler driver names for C and
> Ada) seems to be more problematic.  What about a patch for GCC 2.95.4
> so that the gcc drivers includes Ada support by default, so that you
> can drop in a gnat1 binary?

Won't help.  I have explained this ad nauseam elsewhere.

zw