GNAT on Mac (was: Current state of Ada 9X compilers)

GNAT on Mac (was: Current state of Ada 9X compilers)

[agate!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!ne]

kenner@lab.ultra.nyu.edu (Richard Kenner) says:
> [GCC] can generate code for all targets supported by GCC, which is
> essentially all commonly-used processors and systems other than the
> Cray, Transputer, and KSR.

The Macintosh is not supported by GCC, a fact that brings tears to the
eyes of many of us.  Sniff...

Art Evans

Re: GNAT on Mac (was: Current state of Ada 9X compilers)

[Richard Kenner]

In article <1993Sep24.092645.12008@sei.cmu.edu> ae@sei.cmu.edu (Arthur Evans) w
rites:
>The Macintosh is not supported by GCC, a fact that brings tears to the
>eyes of many of us.  Sniff...

It's important to understand WHY the Macintosh isn't supported by GCC.
The reason is, of course, that Apple's legal actions threaten the
ability of people to write free software, so the FSF supports the LPF
boycott of Apple products.

Re: GNAT on Mac (was: Current state of Ada 9X compilers)

[Vl adimir Vukicevic]

In article <2888m9$p1h@cmcl2.NYU.EDU> kenner@lab.ultra.nyu.edu (Richard Kenner)
 writes:
>In article <28858c$212@aggedor.rmit.OZ.AU> Dale Stanbrough <dale@goanna.cs.rmi
t.edu.au> writes:
>>I presume that if Sun gets a software patent of the sort that the LPF
>>disagrees with, the logical consequence of this policy would be for
>>GNU/FSF to no longer support any Sun product, including a certain GNAT
>>Sparc port?
>>
>>Is this presumption invalid and if so why?
>
>Two comments: First of all, the FSF doesn't "support" products in the
>normal sense of the word.  Although FSF and their volunteers do try to
>provide bugfixes when practical, there is no commitment to do so.
>Commercial organizations such as Cygnus will offer support contracts
>on FSF software.  "Support" here is used in a more colloquial meaning.
>
>Now to get to your substantive point: there is a significant
>difference between merely obtaining a software patent and what Apple
>has done.  Although I cannot speak for the LPF, nor is it practical to
>speculate about what the LPF might decide to do in hypothetical
>circumstances, it seems highly unlikely that companies would be added
>to the boycott merely for obtaining software patents.
>
>On the other hand, if some company were to undertake litigation to
>attempt to use their software patents to block the creation of free
>software, that would be something else entirely.
>

When did Apple do that? I don't think that Microsoft Windows qualifies
as 'free software.'

	- Vladimir

---------
Vladimir Vukicevic		-- vladimir@intrepid.com
	with Std_Disclaimer;
	use Std_Discalimer;