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-Thread: 103376,2c7b0b777188b7c4
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news2.google.com!proxad.net!proxad.net!newsfeed.arcor.de!news.arcor.de!not-for-mail
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 13:18:42 +0200
From: Georg Bauhaus <bauhaus@futureapps.de>
User-Agent: Debian Thunderbird 1.0.2 (X11/20051002)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: GNAT GPL Edition Maintenance and Upgrades
References: <a790c$4342e299$499532c$1080@ALLTEL.NET>
   <1128499462.850353.146890@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
   <oNU0f.3248$4h2.686@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>
   <87ek6zom2h.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org>
   <rVd1f.7719$oc.565@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>
   <m2fyree0wz.fsf@grendel.local>
   <zFn1f.7633$zQ3.5405@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>
   <mrw+A5Ls5qp1@eisner.encompasserve.org>
   <eLednaybe-pr89veRVn-vg@comcast.com>   <87ek697ga5.fsf@willow.rfc1149.net>
   <435e99ee$0$23939$9b4e6d93@newsread2.arcor-online.net>
   <1130321538.366226.26460@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>
   <4360b346$0$22526$9b4e6d93@newsread4.arcor-online.net>
 <1130476216.365009.9090@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <1130476216.365009.9090@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <43620890$0$22541$9b4e6d93@newsread4.arcor-online.net>
Organization: Arcor
NNTP-Posting-Date: 28 Oct 2005 13:16:32 MEST
NNTP-Posting-Host: f265ed88.newsread4.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=O[Sk;S7G@o8_78OXD477\?:ejgIfPPld4jW\KbG]kaM8U7^]5?JhlB>3<HKakTf;68hP3YJKgE\j<gk0KEPY_gV=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@arcor.de
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:6027
Date: 2005-10-28T13:16:32+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Steve Whalen wrote:

> The GMGPL code may be buried in the FSF source tree, but the C
> and C++ languages still drive the FSF "releases".  Ada is just
> along for the ride and if I'm wrong I hope someone will correct
> me, but I don't recall a single time since Ada "joined" the FSF
> tree that the FSF release produced an Ada compiler that was
> equal in quality to any of the AdaCore public releases.

Is it more about knowing that FSF GNAT is in good shape,
or is it about being told by AdaCore that a GNAT is in
good shape? For a long time now the the 3.4.x GCCs from the FSF
had an Ada compiler that was just fine WRT ACATS. There were
issues with NPTL, OS stuff, installation path trouble with
mixed ACT and MinGW installations etc. IIRC.


> The C++ compiler in an FSF release is usually just fine,

The C++ compiler also has a history of issues... not stopping
a release.
Why is it considered good enough in spite of the issues?
I guess that's the meaning of "good enough"?