This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org 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 & JGNAT

From: Paolo Bonzini <bonzini at gnu dot org>
To: Robert Dewar <dewar at gnat dot com>
Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Wed, 07 Jul 2004 18:55:55 +0200
Subject: Re: Ada & JGNAT
References: <1088805125.8635.26.camel@pc.site> <40EB38AF.4040506@specifixinc.com> <20040707104450.1f0aa36b@buddha.localdomain.de> <40EBEF57.4060108@gnat.com> <40EC1544.2040008@gnu.org> <40EC2410.5080807@gnat.com>

The problem is that JBC being a valid output for Ada might cause rms to push against having a JBC front-end in GCC.
I can't imagine why? If you are worried about GNAT itself, then
why would this be a concern, since GNAT is FS.

Because this would go against what he was told about JBC not being flexible enough to allow arbitrary proprietary front-ends.

Paolo

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Ada & JGNAT
  - From: Robert Dewar

References:
- Ada & JGNAT
  - From: Laurent GUERBY
- Re: Ada & JGNAT
  - From: Jim Wilson
- Re: Ada & JGNAT
  - From: Matthias Benkmann
- Re: Ada & JGNAT
  - From: Robert Dewar
- Re: Ada & JGNAT
  - From: Paolo Bonzini
- Re: Ada & JGNAT
  - From: Robert Dewar

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