From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,15ce5e046cd0b91d X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-07-07 06:30:02 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news.tele.dk!212.74.64.35!colt.net!diablo.netcom.net.uk!netcom.net.uk!btnet-peer!btnet-peer0!btnet!news.netkonect.net!katana.legend.co.uk!194.164.53.202 From: John Poltorak Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: ADA for OS/2 Date: Sat, 07 Jul 2001 14:29:56 +0100 Organization: Legend Internet Ltd Message-ID: <3B470ED2.9CA17CBE@eyup.org> References: <3B417021.A68938D2@eyup.org> <3B41A4C7.E819C1E3@eyup.org> <20010704114900.48bc8b38.McCratch@gmx.net> <3B431D22.C20FF8BD@eyup.org> <0fqDUcnQj8JQ@eisner.encompasserve.org> <5ee5b646.0107051341.2a0d4b42@posting.google.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: katana.legend.co.uk Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: news.netkonect.net 994512853 23579 194.164.121.252 (7 Jul 2001 13:34:13 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@news.netkonect.net NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 7 Jul 2001 13:34:13 +0000 (UTC) X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (OS/2; U) X-Accept-Language: en X-NNTP-Posting-Host: 194.164.53.202 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:9606 Date: 2001-07-07T14:29:56+01:00 List-Id: Dave Parsons wrote: > On Fri, 6 Jul 2001 15:41:58, Ted Dennison wrote: > > > I think that once Gnat is in the GCC baseline (RSN, right?), its perfectly > > reasonable to expect the community to build its own binaries for *all* > > platforms, as well as to coordinate releases, etc. If ACT feels its in their > > best interests to contribute to that effort, then great. But they are a > > *company* and its about time we quit expecting them to do tons of stuff for us > > for free, just because we'd like it. > > > > True, but since the OS/2 code is still in the baseline presumably it > is tested and the results of the tests would include an OS/2 binary > which would in turn have to be tested. > If that is true, why not release it, or is the OS/2 code not tested > anymore? > If it is not tested, what does that mean for the quality of any private > builds? This sounds like a moot point since no one apart, from the GNAT developers, appears to be able to build an OS/2 version... -- John > > -- > Dave