Re: Why not gnat Ada in gcc?

[Jeffrey A Law <law at cygnus dot com>]

  In message <200010111937.VAA01637@ulmo>you write:
  > Disclaimer: I worked for ACT but I no longer do, I'm on the support client 
  > side now.
Understood.

  > IMHO, the problem we're trying to correct now is to get past the chicken-an
  > d-egg
  > bootstrap problem, no available GCC compatible source means no contribution
  > which means no incentive to provide public up to date sources...
We can get the compiler bootstrapped.  It's not the most pleasant thing
to do, but nor is it a terrible thing to do.  And it only has to be done
once and you can then use that compiler to bootstrap later versions.

  > If ACT provides sources compatible with the current GCC in CVS and the
  > GCC steering committee accepts it, that's a HUGE progress in the right
  > direction. So far, nothing has been decided (at least not publically
  > on this list) on the topic of the inclusion of the Ada sources in the
  > FSF GCC CVS repository.
I'd very much like to see it in the repo.  That's the first step, move
development into the open where others can contribute in whatever way
is most appropriate for them.

  > 
  > The model proposed by Robert Dewar is the right one to start with, and
  > it will put the merging burden on ACT if some contributions are indeed
  > made by people having write access to the GNAT sources. If this
  > becomes significant, I assume the natural thing will happen (move of
  > the master source to the FSF CVS repository).
But that's there the burden belongs -- on ACT.  Cygnus has dealt with
this burden for 10 years -- it's the price (IMHO) for wanting to be in
the business of supporting and custom development for tools you do not
own/control.  I'm more than happy to give ACT some pointers on how to
manage the process.


  > But I don't think we're here yet or anytime in less than a year, so I
  > don't think it is useful to argue on the source merging process right
  > now.
I would claim the opposite.  We need this to happen sooner, not later.
The longer we wait, the more difficult our work becomes and the longer
we have to deal with the problem of developers making changes, but 
being unable to test that they haven't broken Ada.

Jeff