This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: RFC/Ada: removal of $(ADAC) support
- From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at mvista dot com>
- To: Richard Kenner <kenner at vlsi1 dot ultra dot nyu dot edu>
- Cc: zack at codesourcery dot com, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Mon, 12 May 2003 19:02:22 -0400
- Subject: Re: RFC/Ada: removal of $(ADAC) support
- References: <10305122225.AA09550@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu>
On Mon, May 12, 2003 at 06:25:58PM -0400, Richard Kenner wrote:
> The difference is that major Linux distributors, and all three of the
> *BSDs, deliberately shipped a 2.95 "gcc" but a 2.8 "gnatgcc".
> Precisely because of (1). That's enough evidence as far as I care.
>
> That's not my understanding. They shipped a "2.95" gcc because they wanted
> "the latest and greatest" gcc. But there was no GNAT for 2.95 so they had no
> choice but to distribute one based on 2.8 since they wanted GNAT there.
>
> I have seen no evidence that "gnatgcc" can't bootstrap GCC 3.x and indeed
> have seen plenty of evidence that it can.
On some popular architectures it can. Debian did experience a number
of bootstrap failures on other architectures when we frst transitioned
to GCC 3.2 however. It was also particularly sensitive to small
perturbations in the compiler being bootstrapped, making it
particularly frustrating.
Sorry, I no longer have the logs, so consider this only informed hearsay.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer