From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30813 invoked by alias); 17 Dec 2001 21:31:52 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 30781 invoked from network); 17 Dec 2001 21:31:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mel-rto1.wanadoo.fr) (193.252.19.188) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 17 Dec 2001 21:31:49 -0000 Received: from antholoma.wanadoo.fr (193.252.19.153) by mel-rto1.wanadoo.fr; 17 Dec 2001 22:31:48 +0100 Received: from ulmo.localdomain (193.253.192.44) by antholoma.wanadoo.fr; 17 Dec 2001 22:31:32 +0100 Received: (from guerby@localhost) by ulmo.localdomain (8.11.6/8.11.6) id fBHLKur02734; Mon, 17 Dec 2001 22:20:56 +0100 Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 13:39:00 -0000 Message-Id: <200112172120.fBHLKur02734@ulmo.localdomain> X-Authentication-Warning: ulmo.localdomain: guerby set sender to guerby@acm.org using -f From: To: kenner@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu CC: lucier@math.purdue.edu, gcc@gcc.gnu.org In-reply-to: <10112172047.AA25097@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> (kenner@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu) Subject: Re: Freeze timing and questions Reply-to: guerby@acm.org References: <10112172047.AA25097@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> X-SW-Source: 2001-12/txt/msg00941.txt.bz2 > You may recall that I was against the widening of the test for an > existing Ada compiler for just this reason, but most people felt > diferently. And the argument at the time was let's see what existing Ada compilers are known to work, since ACT people were strongly implying than the ALT RPM compiler would cause trouble. I'd say from day to day builds in the few past monthes that 3.13p from ACT tarball and RPM from ALT on i386-linux are both working perfectly fine - I've been working exclusively with the ALT one except for the first days, I assume ACT is working with some 3.13 version installed. We want to reject versions < 3.13 since GNAT has always required version N-1 or above to build. My preference would be to recognize them on i386-linux and enable Ada if a known to work version is found. Same reasoning possible on platforms, looks like on mingw32 we have someone taking care of GNAT :). (Assuming by the time of the 3.1 release the Ada compiler is known to be in good shape of course.) But I have no strong feeling for 3.1 on this point, if people think it turns out to be just safer to disable Ada by default, I have no problem with that. I don't think it is necessary to commit a decision right now though, having it still enabled for a while will give us a bit more information on what's working and what's not, improving Ada configure machinery, etc. If we don't have problem reports we probably won't have an Ada compiler working well out of the box on lots of platforms. As for GCC release criteria, Ada should not be one for 3.1, but 3.2 Ada should not have regressions against what was achieved for 3.1 :). PS: my day job will hopefully stop drifting to a night job tomorrow since I'll be on vacation for one week with three days of full internet access and nothing scheduled (except watching LOTR :). -- Laurent Guerby