Why not gnat Ada in gcc?

[Robert Dewar]

<<OK.  Then do you see how to separate your needs as a company from the needs
of the GNU development community and how to resolve those differences in such
a way as to put everyone on equal footing in regards to GNU Ada?  I don't
think so, partly due to this lengthy discussion and partly because you've
never really tried to play this game in the past.
>>

Of course. In fact I don't see a problem here, let's see how things work out.

<<We've never done that.  Sorry if you got that impression.
>>

But that's what you seemed to be saying, and that is all I was questioning.

<<Then can you see that if the ACT tree isn't the official GNU Ada tree
that the official FSF GNU Ada has to be somewhere else?  And that somehow
you have to manage the process of dealing with changes from multiple sources?
And that the burden for managing those changes has to fall on ACT, not the
other developers?
>>

Of course, that's why we are working to put the GNAT sources in the main
gcc tree!

<<We always have a certain amount of ongoing development that we provide to
our customers, then make available to the net.
>>

Again, I see no difference in our plans from what you have been doing
as best I understand it, except that I gather that in some cases you
hold things back because of NDA's and that is something we will not
do as a matter of policy.

<<Where I think we disagree is on the topic of how changes get into the
official GNU tree and how we're going to ensure that all developers are
on equal footing.
>>

I don't really see any substantial disagreement

<<What makes you think the ia32 port came out of the blue?  Oh yea, you haven't
been active in gcc discussions until the last month or so.  You have to rely
on what others told you.  Why don't you go back and see the archives of the
development list where you'll find significant discussions about the new
backend and collaborative work from various sources before it was installed
to the head of the GCC tree.
>>

Oops, my finger typing mistake, sorry for confusion, I was talking about
the ia64 port.