From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5260 invoked by alias); 31 Aug 2004 02:10:22 -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 4286 invoked from network); 31 Aug 2004 02:09:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (65.74.133.10) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 31 Aug 2004 02:09:52 -0000 Received: (qmail 32294 invoked from network); 31 Aug 2004 02:09:51 -0000 Received: from taltos.codesourcery.com (zack@66.92.218.83) by mail.codesourcery.com with DES-CBC3-SHA encrypted SMTP; 31 Aug 2004 02:09:51 -0000 Received: by taltos.codesourcery.com (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Mon, 30 Aug 2004 19:09:50 -0700 To: Robert Dewar Cc: Richard Henderson , 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> <20040830205702.GB2566@redhat.com> <4133A3D2.80202@gnat.com> <87brgs5dzu.fsf@codesourcery.com> <4133D371.5030203@gnat.com> From: Zack Weinberg Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 02:54:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <4133D371.5030203@gnat.com> (Robert Dewar's message of "Mon, 30 Aug 2004 21:25:05 -0400") Message-ID: <87y8jw3vo1.fsf@codesourcery.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.110003 (No Gnus v0.3) Emacs/21.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2004-08/txt/msg01563.txt.bz2 Robert Dewar writes: > Zack Weinberg wrote: > >> Robert Dewar writes: >> >>>Reading Zack's message: >>> >>>>Second, the Ada maintainers have said in the past that they >>>>deliberately break source compatibility between releases (such that >>>>GCC 3.x with Ada is only guaranteed to be buildable with GCC 3.(x-1)). >>> >>>That's entirely wrong. Nothing is broken deliberately, and no one >>>ever said anything of the kind. >> I disagree; that *is*, in fact, what is said or at least strongly >> implied by messages like >> : > > No, it definitely is NOT said here. There is absolutely nothing > there about deliberately breaking source compatibility. I can't > imagine how you manage this strange reading. Whereas I cannot imagine how you manage to miss what is a clear implication of the text of that message. I'm willing to accept what you say now as a statement of a changed policy, though. > Just so things are clear, we start our nightly runs with several > different older versions of the compiler precisely to make sure we > retain as much compatibility with old versions as possible for > builds. I am very glad to hear this. A further step forward would be to state which older versions those are, what your policies are for selecting those older versions, and when the set might change. >> I'd also add that personally, I consider my third requirement >> (patch submission according to the same requirements binding >> on all other contributors) to be much more important than the >> one you chose to discuss. > > You must be missing some messages in this thread, since that has > most certainly been discussed by me and others. Test cases has been discussed at length, but the other ways in which ACT does not follow the patch submission requirements have not been discussed at all. zw