This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Success report on Linux/PPC, small Ada problem
- From: mike stump <mrs at windriver dot com>
- To: dewar at gnat dot com, rth at redhat dot com
- Cc: fw at deneb dot enyo dot de, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, jsm28 at cam dot ac dot uk, minyard at acm dot org
- Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 12:02:46 -0800 (PST)
- Subject: Re: Success report on Linux/PPC, small Ada problem
> To: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
> Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 22:40:15 -0500 (EST)
> From: email@example.com (Robert Dewar)
> >>They need to set a goal of once a week, come hell or high water.
> That's certainly the goal, as I mentioned earlier, part of the
> trouble is that we are not at the starting point yet of having a
> reliable GCC 3 version of GNAT, but we are extremely close,
> especially on GNU/Linux (Solaris is not far behind, Tru64 has a bit
> further to go, HPUX is also in reasonable shape).
Ah, I think that it is even more important to merge something that
doesn't quite work yet, than it is to merge something that works. You
see, it is possible that others will offer additional help to make it
work. The contraint on this, would that it should be `better' at each
I understand it would be nice to have it work perfectly, but since it
doesn't already, that isn't a possibility. The best you can do is
just to make it `better', even if this isn't were you would like to be
at the end of the day.
Now, if what you would want to merge, isn't `better' than what it
replaces, then certainly I would agree to hold off merging. I cannot
tell from your message which is the case.