RFC/Ada: removal of $(ADAC) support

[Daniel Jacobowitz]

On Mon, May 12, 2003 at 06:25:58PM -0400, Richard Kenner wrote:
>     The difference is that major Linux distributors, and all three of the
>     *BSDs, deliberately shipped a 2.95 "gcc" but a 2.8 "gnatgcc".
>     Precisely because of (1).  That's enough evidence as far as I care.
> 
> That's not my understanding.  They shipped a "2.95" gcc because they wanted
> "the latest and greatest" gcc.  But there was no GNAT for 2.95 so they had no
> choice but to distribute one based on 2.8 since they wanted GNAT there.
> 
> I have seen no evidence that "gnatgcc" can't bootstrap GCC 3.x and indeed
> have seen plenty of evidence that it can.

On some popular architectures it can.  Debian did experience a number
of bootstrap failures on other architectures when we frst transitioned
to GCC 3.2 however.  It was also particularly sensitive to small
perturbations in the compiler being bootstrapped, making it
particularly frustrating.

Sorry, I no longer have the logs, so consider this only informed hearsay.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer