This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Ada files now checked in
- To: Richard Kenner <kenner at vlsi1 dot ultra dot nyu dot edu>
- Subject: Re: Ada files now checked in
- From: Zack Weinberg <zack at codesourcery dot com>
- Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2001 09:55:03 -0700
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- References: <10110052206.AA01096@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu>
On Fri, Oct 05, 2001 at 06:06:50PM -0400, Richard Kenner wrote:
> On the contrary, it is the only way to make the CVS tree build without
> extra effort on the part of every person building it.
> I disagree.
I'd like to see how you propose to make the extra effort disappear
otherwise. I've been quite clear where it comes from.
> This is not a nonstandard configuration that I have. This is the way
> GNAT has been packaged for most Linux distributions for as long as
> I've been paying attention to these things.
> I know, but that's "nonstandard". There is not supposed to be a
> different name for the driver program. I have no idea why they
> chose to do it that way, but I don't feel it reasonable to clutter
> up the Makefile to support an incorrect and now obsolete packaging.
> No ACT-related GNAT release, either customer releases or public
> releases orginally prepared by ACT has had such a nonstandard usage.
"ACT never does that" is not the same as "wrong."
The system integrators who shipped separate drivers for Ada and
everything else have good reason to do it that way - see Daniel
Jacobowitz' comments downthread, for instance. The FSF tree needs to
support a wider range of initial system configurations than your
private tree does.
> Yes, there is a bootstrap problem because GNAT is written in Ada,
> but once the GCC binary packages start including it, this problem
> will go away. We don't need to add the complexity just for that
> short period.
This "short period" you refer to stretches from now until GCC >=3.1
(including Ada) is the default system compiler on every relevant
platform. That will take at least two years.