Re: What happens to DEC Ada?

[brentcarnellis@hotmail.com]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1780 bytes --]

On Mon, 06 Aug 2001 08:12:41 GMT, "nicolas" <n.brunot@cadwin.com>
wrote:
><brentcarnellis@hotmail.com> a �crit dans le message news:
>> On Fri, 03 Aug 2001 11:31:42 GMT, "nicolas" <n.brunot@cadwin.com>
>> wrote:
>> >Beside that, the timestamp method cannot always be trusted.
>> >We had problems with gnatmake which doesn't always recompile necessary
>> >files.
>>
>> This so-called problem is a blatant example of fear-mongering ...
>
>Hum, is it really necessary to reply to this, I don't think so.

Thanks for not digging a deeper hole. I will grant that you may have a
bit of a problem expressing yorself in English, but your earlier
statement does tarnish GNAT's reputation in providing a solid
integrated make facility. What you claim is simply not true.

>
>> >The problem occurs when several files in different directories have same
>> >name, same timestamp, and are selected with ADA_INCLUDE_PATH
>> >timestamp and name of the file is checked, they are the sames, gnatmake
>> >doesn't figure out that this is a different file and doesn't recompile
>it.
>> >
>>
>> ... because it looks like the file attributes have been dicked
>> around with.  To get similar symptons, I suggest you open the case on
>> your workstation and pour soy sauce on your circuit boards.
>>
>
>A very simple and normal use of cvs without any "dick around" shows the
>problem.
>Just try ...
>

I would never be caught using CVS in a closed developement
environment.  Boy, I feel the urge to merge; let's see I will
grab this set of files that my colleague might be working on and
then add some code.  We will merge our way out of any mess we create.

A process that does not trust gnatmake to do a bulletproof build, yet
trusts wing-and-a-prayer merging techniques isn't worth arguing over.