This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Why not gnat Ada in gcc?
- To: dewar at gnat dot com (Robert Dewar)
- Subject: Re: Why not gnat Ada in gcc?
- From: Daniel Berlin <dberlin at redhat dot com>
- Date: 01 Nov 2000 22:16:34 -0500
- Cc: kenner at vlsi1 dot ultra dot nyu dot edu, rth at cygnus dot com, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, law at redhat dot com, rms at gnu dot org
- References: <20001102025351.6992434DAF@nile.gnat.com>
firstname.lastname@example.org (Robert Dewar) writes:
> <<You're working on free software for the fsf, therefore IMO you ought
> to be doing your development in the open if at all possible. And
> clearly (as Cygnus nee Red Hat and Codesourcery demonstrate) it is
> not only possible, but not particularly difficult.
> Actually from past experiences recently, e.g. with the ia64 port, I have
> been struck by how closed the development was. Same thing for gdb5, this
> was kept under wraps for a long time. A large company (I won't name names)
> that we worked with was essentially operating as though it were under
> non-disclosure. Both the ia64 port and gdb5 were sudden massive updates,
> and it is hard to see how else it could have been done.
gdb5 was not a sudden massive update.
What are you talking about?
Can you point the changelog entry where all of gdb5 suddenly appeared
It looks like a pretty logical progression looking through the
changelogs, starting with april 1999->may 22, 2000.