This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Ada policy
Robert Dewar <dewar@gnat.com> writes:
> Zack Weinberg wrote:
>
>> This discussion is about appearances as well as actuality. Can you at
>> least agree that a reasonable person could reach my position?
>
> What? Your position that we said we intended to deliberately break
> things? No, I don't see how anyone could reach that
> conclusion. Sorry.
Having thought about this a bit more, I can only defend a slightly
weaker assertion based on messages I can actually find in the mailing
list archives. See my response to Kenner. Can you agree that a
reasonable person could have reached *that* conclusion?
> The interesting thing here is that we have virtually no reports
> of people having difficulty in practice bootstrapping Ada on all
> sorts of targets where the difficulty arises from this consideration.
> Seems a bit of a tempest in a teapot to me.
That is a good sign...
> It is *certainly* not the case that any old arbitrary GNAT can be
> used (there are dozens of versions stretching back over 13 years
> after all!)
I continue to be disappointed that an arbitrary standard-conforming
Ada compiler cannot be used.
> Possibly so, but I was reacting to your claim that you had examined
> the sources and found deliberate violations of the rule, which is
> quite wrong and represented a misunderstanding of the technical
> situation. I suggest you review the way Ada is built so that you
> can understand this point in more detail.
Until such time as the distinction between the runtime and the
compiler proper is reflected in the organization of the source tree, I
cannot be bothered to figure out which is which. This must sound
dreadfully lazy to you, but consider that from my point of view,
checking in a grab bag of patches once a week with no public review is
far lazier. (You continue not to address this concern.)
zw