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,cf43be3112b9305 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-10-29 17:11:30 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.mathworks.com!wn13feed!wn11feed!worldnet.att.net!204.127.198.203!attbi_feed3!attbi_feed4!attbi.com!attbi_s53.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Jeff C," Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada References: Subject: Re: ACATS results with Gnat5.01p X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Message-ID: <4zZnb.43679$275.98528@attbi_s53> NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.34.215.119 X-Complaints-To: abuse@comcast.net X-Trace: attbi_s53 1067476288 24.34.215.119 (Thu, 30 Oct 2003 01:11:28 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 01:11:28 GMT Organization: Comcast Online Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 01:11:28 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:1834 Date: 2003-10-30T01:11:28+00:00 List-Id: "Duncan Sands" wrote in message news:mailman.240.1067440519.25614.comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org... > Sorry, but what is gnat5.01p? Is it based on one > of ACT's builds? > > Thanks, > > Duncan. Somewhat.. Until recently the semi-internal ACT CVS archive for the Ada directory was available online along with build instructions. What was apparently in the CVS was the actual XX.XXa series sources (what gets built and shipped to the customers). the 5.01p that I built was originally based on the released CVS tag of 5.01a BUT this by no means implies that what I ended up with was 5.01a! There are several reasons for that. 1) I modified the version file so that it would not call itself 5.01a. It not identifies itself as 5.01p with a build date appended. 2) I built with gcc 3.2.2. I THINK that they were building with 3.2 (no additional .2) 3) It is unclear/unknown to me if they every supported building inder Redhat 9. 4) There build instructions for building from source indicates that you had to reuse a portion of your existing binary install to get a few components that I deduced may have come from binutils so I built them myself. 5) In order to build the binutils under redhat 9, I probably had to use a newer version they they did/would have. 6) I had no configuration manager / QA making sure I was even really following the instructions that I posted. 7) I did essentially zero true functional testing of the resulting build 8) I bundled it as an RPM. No prior semi-official ACT releases that I am aware of were done that way (not that there was the Ada for Linux team that built RPMs and the compiler from source...Note that they also just called theirs 3.14p (or whatever version they were trying to build). 9) Many more items that I probably am not even aware of. You can read more at http://newserver.thecreems.com/index.php?topic=Programming If you feel the need to actually download stuff, try to get it from the http://www.adaworld.com/linksmain.html site since I do not really have any substantial upload capability.