From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13095 invoked by alias); 30 Aug 2004 20:46:29 -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 13087 invoked from network); 30 Aug 2004 20:46:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailout06.sul.t-online.com) (194.25.134.19) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 30 Aug 2004 20:46:28 -0000 Received: from fwd08.aul.t-online.de by mailout06.sul.t-online.com with smtp id 1C1t2k-00022N-04; Mon, 30 Aug 2004 22:46:22 +0200 Received: from kolme (TztsjqZCYeeQrvBXYGLPQXPU4BqfhFI0etD7eGotUp1FExrj9Tlmgo@[217.94.252.122]) by fmrl08.sul.t-online.com with esmtp id 1C1t2b-0zq4um0; Mon, 30 Aug 2004 22:46:13 +0200 Received: from goofy.hamnixda.de ([192.168.100.249]) by kolme with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1C1t2X-0000WW-00; Mon, 30 Aug 2004 22:46:09 +0200 Message-ID: <4133920A.80204@tat.physik.uni-tuebingen.de> Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 20:55:00 -0000 From: Richard Guenther User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.7.3 (X11/20040820) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Zack Weinberg CC: Laurent GUERBY , Florian Weimer , gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: Ada policy References: <10408301022.AA24170@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> <1093863754.17130.27.camel@pc.site> <20040830090622.GD30497@sunsite.ms.mff.cuni.cz> <1093888894.17130.45.camel@pc.site> <87zn4czaql.fsf@deneb.enyo.de> <1093896230.17130.95.camel@pc.site> <87657074by.fsf@codesourcery.com> In-Reply-To: <87657074by.fsf@codesourcery.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.85.0.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ID: TztsjqZCYeeQrvBXYGLPQXPU4BqfhFI0etD7eGotUp1FExrj9Tlmgo@t-dialin.net X-TOI-MSGID: 40b144ea-477a-4b0e-9a89-2302a256f1d5 X-SW-Source: 2004-08/txt/msg01517.txt.bz2 Zack Weinberg wrote: > Laurent GUERBY writes: > > >>On Mon, 2004-08-30 at 21:28, Florian Weimer wrote: >> >>>I understand that Ada is already in much better shape than we >>>expected it to be before the tree-ssa merge (and that's certainly >>>good news!), but I really doubt we should make a release criterion >>>the quality of a component that has received very little testing by >>>the general GCC community. >> >>I'm just talking about bootstrap, passing ACATS and no known >>regression on two targets, not "quality" in general (whatever that >>means). >> >>The scenario I want to avoid is that we first reach 100% ACATS pass on >>the two targets (looks likely), then later a patch goes in that >>introduces 20 ACATS regressions on those two targets and the patch is >>not fixed or reverted following the usual rules for other components. > > > The last time this came up, I posted a list of requirements which I > consider non-negotiable prerequisites for the community at large being > required to test Ada when they are not specifically working on it. > This list received no commentary whatsoever, and no progress has been > made toward meeting any of the requirements except the separate libada > (which seems to have stalled). > > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2004-02/msg00859.html Maybe testing rules could be relaxed if we had a GENERIC/GIMPLE front-end to fed it testcases which cannot be constructed using C code. That way testing of frontends different from C could be omitted, if not modifying them. Richard.