Re: Ada policy

[Richard Guenther <rguenth at tat dot physik dot uni-tuebingen dot de>]

Zack Weinberg wrote:
> Laurent GUERBY <laurent@guerby.net> writes:
>
>
> > On Mon, 2004-08-30 at 21:28, Florian Weimer wrote:
> >
> > > I understand that Ada is already in much better shape than we
> > > expected it to be before the tree-ssa merge (and that's certainly
> > > good news!), but I really doubt we should make a release criterion
> > > the quality of a component that has received very little testing by
> > > the general GCC community.
> >
> > I'm just talking about bootstrap, passing ACATS and no known
> > regression on two targets, not "quality" in general (whatever that
> > means).
> >
> > The scenario I want to avoid is that we first reach 100% ACATS pass on
> > the two targets (looks likely), then later a patch goes in that
> > introduces 20 ACATS regressions on those two targets and the patch is
> > not fixed or reverted following the usual rules for other components.
>
>
> The last time this came up, I posted a list of requirements which I
> consider non-negotiable prerequisites for the community at large being
> required to test Ada when they are not specifically working on it.
> This list received no commentary whatsoever, and no progress has been
> made toward meeting any of the requirements except the separate libada
> (which seems to have stalled).
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2004-02/msg00859.html

Maybe testing rules could be relaxed if we had a GENERIC/GIMPLE 
front-end to fed it testcases which cannot be constructed using C code. 
 That way testing of frontends different from C could be omitted, if 
not modifying them.

Richard.