Why not gnat Ada in gcc?

[Robert Dewar]

<<If anything can be done in the GNAT sources to support shared
libraries better on GNU/Linux, I hope the GNAT developers will give it
high priority.  Every GNU package should support GNU/Linux well.
>>

Unfort8unately the reason we are conservative is that we have not solved
the tecnhnical problems associated with the use of shared libraries for
GNARL. The RPM's that are being built by others do not pass our full
regression suite. Now for the informal use for which most people are using
these RPM's the errors are marginal, and probably most people won't run into
them, but we cannot produce RPM's that malfunction. We do not consider
producing flawed software to be "supprting GNU/Linux well". We are
continuing to work on the tecnbical problems here.

The reason we do not default to native (kernel) threads is that there have
been technnical problems of exact compliance between the GNU/Linux native
thread model and the vgery specific requirements of the Ada definition.

We are experimenting now with making the use of GNU/Linux native threads
the default, but there is still work to be done here. Again, for the
informal use to which most people put these RPM's, the differences are
small, and indeed for many purposes, the native threads are preferable.

Until these technical issues are resolved, we recommend that any serious
use of GNU Ada use the binary versions prepared by Ada Core Technologies.
Yes, we are conservative, it is definitely part of our commitment to
high reliability, which after all is what Ada is all about!

Robert Dewar