This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Success report on Linux/PPC, small Ada problem
- From: "Joseph S. Myers" <jsm28 at cam dot ac dot uk>
- To: Robert Dewar <dewar at gnat dot com>
- Cc: <jbuck at synopsys dot COM>, <fw at deneb dot enyo dot de>, <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>, <minyard at acm dot org>
- Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 02:42:25 +0000 (GMT)
- Subject: Re: Success report on Linux/PPC, small Ada problem
On Mon, 4 Feb 2002, Robert Dewar wrote:
> >>Yes, I agree with Joseph on this one, as he says
> Well it is reasonable to agree with Joseph, but he is quoting something
> that does not exist in the current documentation, so as I say, perhaps
> we should wait to see what the problems are, rather than guess at them
> based on obsolete versions of the documentation.
> No, I don't feel "picked on" at all. I have a mission here which is to
> make it as easy as possible for ACT to coordinate with the FSF tree.
> Basically we would like NOT to have a separate tree internally, but
> that involves working out things so that this is reasonably possible
> for ACT. The dynamics are a little different from Redhat, in that so
> far ACT has done virtually all the work on GNAT. Hopefully that will
> change in the future, but meanwhile, we want to encourage ACT to keep
> the trees as well coordinated as possible.
While there are separate trees, it isn't meaningful to say that "current"
only applies to the ACT one. I'm quoting the *current* FSF documentation;
you're referring (I suppose) to the current ACT documentation. If the ACT
documentation is more appropriate for a GNU manual than the FSF
documentation, then perhaps a swap between the manuals in the two trees is
needed. If the docs in GCC are "obsolete", they are still the current GCC
Joseph S. Myers