This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [Ada] Patch to fix bug reporting instructions (3.1 branch)

On Wednesday, May 1, 2002, at 06:06 , Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> Do you mean people using their own installation of 3.1 to bootstrap 3.2,
> or do you mean an ACT-provided binary every time?  If it's OK for people
> to use their own 3.1 installation, why not their own 3.1[34] 
> installation?
> What about their own installation where 3.1 is the Ada compiler but 
> the C
> compiler is a more conservative version, such as 3.0?  The GNU/Linux
> distributions often choose different compiler versions for different
> languages.  Again, RMS has stated that it's important for GNU Ada to
> support GNU/Linux well.

Mixing versions for different C and Ada compilers is definately not
supported. One obvious example of the kind of problem you can run into,
is the one people encountered recently when there were exception handling
problems, due to incompatible changes in GCC's exception handling between
version 2.8.1 and 3.0. If you are worried about breaking general GCC
builds by trying to build Ada without a proper compiler installed, if
anything, you should be more restrictive in what compilers to use.

There really is nothing to gain and a whole lot to lose by getting lost
in hopelessly complex configury tests and arbitrary restrictions
on the compiler, just so people can build with whatever they have.

Right now, we are in a transitioning phase, since there is no GCC release
yet with Ada support. We could even disable Ada by default, as there will
be people building binary versions anyway. For future versions, there
is a very clear base compiler that should be used, which is the previous
FSF released version of GCC.

The outcome of our previous discussion on this very topic was that
all current Ada contributors (not just ACT), as well as others writing
compilers in its own language agreed that this was a reasonable approach.
I find it peculiar that you feel so strongly on this topic, that you
appeal to the steering committee and RMS to change the policy.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]