ada/6558: [mainline regression] Wrongly reverted patches

[Zack Weinberg]

On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 02:05:06AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> What sort of progress can we make on this?
> 
> Clearly what needs to be checked are the patches to the FSF tree from 
> 2001 and earlier.  But how much earlier ?!?  Is there an earlier point 
> at which we know that the ACT (?) tree had been merged *from* the FSF 
> tree, so that we don't need to look earlier than that?  Otherwise this 
> is potentially an endless problem.

My understanding is that the only patches at issue were those lost
when this change occurred:

2002-03-07  Geert Bosch  <bosch@gnat.com>

        * 41intnam.ads, 42intnam.ads, 4aintnam.ads, 4cintnam.ads,
        4dintnam.ads, 4gintnam.ads, 4hintnam.ads, 4lintnam.ads,
        4mintnam.ads, 4pintnam.ads, 4rintnam.ads, 4sintnam.ads,
        4uintnam.ads, 4vcalend.adb, 4zintnam.ads, 52system.ads,
        5amastop.adb, 5asystem.ads, 5ataprop.adb, 5atpopsp.adb,
        5avxwork.ads, 5bosinte.adb, 5bsystem.ads, 5esystem.ads,
	[...]
        utils.c, utils2.c, validsw.adb, xnmake.adb, xr_tabls.adb,
        xr_tabls.ads, xref_lib.adb, xref_lib.ads : Merge in ACT changes.

        * 1ssecsta.adb, 1ssecsta.ads, a-chlat9.ads, a-cwila9.ads,
        g-enblsp.adb, g-md5.adb, g-md5.ads, gnatname.adb, gnatname.ads,
        mkdir.c, osint-b.adb, osint-b.ads, osint-c.adb, osint-c.ads,
        osint-l.adb, osint-l.ads, osint-m.adb, osint-m.ads : New files

        * 3lsoccon.ads, 5qparame.ads, 5qvxwork.ads, 5smastop.adb,
        5zparame.ads, gnatmain.adb, gnatmain.ads, gnatpsys.adb : Removed

        * mdllfile.adb, mdllfile.ads, mdlltool.adb, mdlltool.ads : Renamed
        to mdll-fil.ad[bs] and mdll-util.ad[bs]

        * mdll-fil.adb, mdll-fil.ads, mdll-utl.adb, mdll-utl.ads : Renamed
        from mdllfile.ad[bs] and mdlltool.ad[bs]

I would like to point out that it is just shy of eight months since
this happened, and there has been no indication that Mr. Bosch has
lifted a finger to address the problem that he created (beyond
claiming that it would be fixed soon).

I am tempted to invoke the patch reversion procedure and demand that
this entire merge be backed out.  I will certainly do so if the issue
is not resolved by the time 3.3 branches.

zw