From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9580 invoked by alias); 26 Jun 2009 14:48:13 -0000 Received: (qmail 9566 invoked by uid 22791); 26 Jun 2009 14:48:12 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mel.act-europe.fr (HELO mel.act-europe.fr) (212.99.106.210) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 26 Jun 2009 14:48:04 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-smtp.eu.adacore.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E393290004; Fri, 26 Jun 2009 16:48:01 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mel.act-europe.fr ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.eu.adacore.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id E-t4jPd-AMzu; Fri, 26 Jun 2009 16:48:01 +0200 (CEST) Received: from province.act-europe.fr (province.act-europe.fr [10.10.0.214]) by mel.act-europe.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 038E529000C; Fri, 26 Jun 2009 16:48:01 +0200 (CEST) Received: by province.act-europe.fr (Postfix, from userid 525) id EB99D16648C; Fri, 26 Jun 2009 16:48:00 +0200 (CEST) Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 15:36:00 -0000 From: Arnaud Charlet To: Ian Lance Taylor Cc: laurent@guerby.net, Eric Botcazou , Richard Guenther , gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: Phase 1 of gcc-in-cxx now complete (Ada) Message-ID: <20090626144800.GA82730@adacore.com> References: <1245966606.4922.217.camel@localhost> <84fc9c000906251516n3a74abe2hcf888f940fccce79@mail.gmail.com> <1246015098.4922.307.camel@localhost> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2009-06/txt/msg00605.txt.bz2 > > What is the way forward: fixing in some way the Ada Makefile? Or doing > > search and replace in case of keyword/identifier conflict? If > > search/replace, do AdaCore people have an opinion on the best way > > to proceed to avoid maintenance issues in the various trees? (eg: commit > > of those trivial patches directly on trunk or on AdaCore tree then > > trunk?) > > I can't answer that--it's up to the Ada maintainers. I think we do want to fix these warnings. Apart from trivial keyword issues, they do point to dubious C constructs anyway, so nice to clean up in any case. I'd suggest posting patching to gcc-patches as usual. Arno