From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-return-179571-listarch-gcc=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 9613 invoked by alias); 24 Jul 2013 22:52:02 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/>
Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 9586 invoked by uid 89); 24 Jul 2013 22:52:01 -0000
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-0.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_50,FREEMAIL_FROM,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_YE,RDNS_NONE,SPF_PASS,TW_EK autolearn=no version=3.3.1
Received: from Unknown (HELO mail-lb0-f169.google.com) (209.85.217.169)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.84/v0.84-167-ge50287c) with ESMTP; Wed, 24 Jul 2013 22:52:00 +0000
Received: by mail-lb0-f169.google.com with SMTP id d10so971201lbj.14        for <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>; Wed, 24 Jul 2013 15:51:52 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.152.88.78 with SMTP id be14mr18071639lab.19.1374706312002; Wed, 24 Jul 2013 15:51:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.112.71.10 with HTTP; Wed, 24 Jul 2013 15:51:51 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <51EFF7AE.8070301@redhat.com>
References: <CAMZ=zj40GLLXB0toTGhpJihm--eMYMd643SOVGcPUg+LpRuZ8g@mail.gmail.com>	<51EF8D98.3060005@redhat.com>	<CAMZ=zj67PA=yYGnkCZmG3Yet45r5=f=HvWcu6p_v2VgNfo--4w@mail.gmail.com>	<51EFB70C.3050309@redhat.com>	<CAAiZkiB6azOhjG1KwEMTSkJRga=6ONL63HW5q23nxCgSahFaNQ@mail.gmail.com>	<51EFDA52.8000903@redhat.com>	<CAAiZkiBMmLGrYgb0kE2CSCJnpRtRa3ZBa1x+2jVVpBjaAZnozQ@mail.gmail.com>	<51EFF7AE.8070301@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 22:52:00 -0000
Message-ID: <CAMZ=zj7wQ0ELaYZezrYcgaFrYD-2_5yRUDpxeYh6p59ypi4nCw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: fatal error: gnu/stubs-32.h: No such file
From: David Starner <prosfilaes@gmail.com>
To: Andrew Haley <aph@redhat.com>
Cc: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr@integrable-solutions.net>, gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-SW-Source: 2013-07/txt/msg00375.txt.bz2

On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 8:50 AM, Andrew Haley <aph@redhat.com> wrote:
> Not at all: we're just disagreeing about what a real system with
> a real workload looks like.

No, we aren't. We're disagreeing about whether it's acceptable to
enable a feature by default that breaks the compiler build half way
through with an obscure error message. Real systems need features that
aren't enabled by default sometimes.

> It's a stupid thing to say anyway, because
> who is to say their system is more real than mine or yours?

By that logic, you've already said that any system needing GNAT is
less real then others, because it's not enabled by default.

-- 
Kie ekzistas vivo, ekzistas espero.