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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: a07f3367d7,5f6322415d6639e0
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news1.google.com!news.glorb.com!gegeweb.org!usenet-fr.net!nospam.fr.eu.org!nntpfeed.proxad.net!proxad.net!feeder2-2.proxad.net!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool1.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 22:20:55 +0200
From: Georg Bauhaus <rm.tsoh.plus-bug.bauhaus@maps.futureapps.de>
Reply-To: rm.tsoh+bauhaus@maps.futureapps.de
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (Windows/20090302)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Will the defect with formal package parameters be fixed in GNAT
  GPL 2009?
References: <558b7171-809b-4259-8679-4b4cff9de519@b6g2000pre.googlegroups.com>
 <e1b3e4ee-cd84-4b98-8b38-225ccc607705@s1g2000prd.googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <e1b3e4ee-cd84-4b98-8b38-225ccc607705@s1g2000prd.googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <49f613a7$0$31338$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net>
Organization: Arcor
NNTP-Posting-Date: 27 Apr 2009 22:20:55 CEST
NNTP-Posting-Host: d62b5820.newsspool4.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=LH:Y_o4;Sea_0Po7BmQ3]l4IUK<Cl32<a4Fo<]lROoRa^YC2XCjHcbiK7?6[R[SQ5eA:ho7QcPOVcaPS1U\=f5CkUU?Ikm54g6m
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:5569
Date: 2009-04-27T22:20:55+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

sjw wrote:
> On Apr 27, 3:47 pm, Eric Hughes <eric....@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> My question, a very simple yes-or-no one, is this: Is this defect
>> corrected for a presumed 2009 release of GNAT GPL edition?
> 
> When you posted this before, I asked what the Bugzilla (or other) ref
> was that you'd posted the bug report under. You replied saying that
> _I_ was welcome to post a bug report. I guess the gentle hint wasn't
> enough
> 
> Newsflash: it's _your_ problem, _you_ post the bug report! (and if you
> didn't, why are you surprised that it's not fixed?)

BTW, is it true that there a C++ compiler company that does
support open source projects with quickly fixed GPL compilers?