Re: Recent Ada ACATS regressions

[Laurent Guerby <guerby at acm dot org>]

Arnaud Charlet wrote:
> I think it is appropriate to add some clarification.
>
> ACT's "internal" tree is based on the GCC 3.2 branch, and this is were we
> have stabilized things and focused our efforts (this is what Robert's
> message explained), since working on the GCC HEAD has proven to be 
impractical
> for getting a stable compiler, at least in our experience and for the 
kind
> of quality our customers need.

Thanks for the clarification Arnaud!

> The new failures you are reporting are related to changes in
> the HEAD that are new uncovered failures, or most likely require 
changes in
> gigi.
>
> ACT does *not* currently have any GCC 3.3 or 3.4 version that works or
> has been tested (as explained by Richard's message), so this is not a 
simple
> matter of merging, since we do not have anything to merge on the HEAD at
> this point.

With my ACT customer hat on, I agree that it is unreasonable to release
anything to customers from HEAD :).

However, with my free software home developper hat on, it seems
to me that this implies that ACT spends ressources
on 3.2 (reasonable) and so has very little ressource left for HEAD.

Would it be possible to ship diffs to volunteers between 3.2 CVS and
ACT and/or HEAD and some ACT person tree if it makes more sense?
(You might want to put them on ACT Europe libre site or something
like that.)

People outside ACT might not be able to help that much, but at least
we can help pinpoint some amount of HEAD regressions on a per patch
basis with some confidence that it's not wasted effort.

The ACATS test prototype is used to my knowledge on a significant
number of platforms now.

--
Laurent Guerby <guerby@acm.org>