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=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Received: by 10.182.68.10 with SMTP id r10mr4317617obt.13.1420938583169; Sat, 10 Jan 2015 17:09:43 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.140.34.206 with SMTP id l72mr371662qgl.0.1420938583019; Sat, 10 Jan 2015 17:09:43 -0800 (PST) Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!mx02.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.glorb.com!peer01.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!h15no2056970igd.0!news-out.google.com!qk8ni2672igc.0!nntp.google.com!f12no295379qad.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2015 17:09:42 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=50.250.123.221; posting-account=yiWntAoAAAC1KqC_shmxJYv07B9l6LNU NNTP-Posting-Host: 50.250.123.221 References: <87bnmetex4.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org> <4ae7f0d5-d681-4be9-95bc-b5e789b3ad40@googlegroups.com> <87tx06rve6.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org> <87lhlirpk0.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org> <79f3eff7-2b45-40ae-af94-fa9a17426d82@googlegroups.com> <87bnmd8mg2.fsf@ixod.org> <19cf9bc2-f8b9-4735-b427-7b070dda59da@googlegroups.com> <1420821566.25169.31.camel@obry.net> User-Agent: G2/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <501b4436-6852-461e-abb9-145616803a5f@googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: GNAT GPL is not shareware From: David Botton Injection-Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2015 01:09:43 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Received-Bytes: 3418 X-Received-Body-CRC: 2305698753 Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:24530 Date: 2015-01-10T17:09:42-08:00 List-Id: > Is it correct that the free GNU compiler is exactly the same compiler as= =20 > Adacore's one? AdaCore, and one reason they deserve much praise, up streams most of their = improvements on gcc/ada back to the FSF. So the FSF compiler is not identic= al but close to older versions of AdaCore's products. When compiling gcc there are many options and features not just on the Ada = side, so they will never be identical. Based on your previous questions, in terms of language features they are bo= th Ada 2012 compilers and the same sort of gnat specific extensions, etc. w= ould be in both, etc. So for professional use FSF gcc/ada is a good choice.= In particular on platforms with maintainers like GNU Linux/Debian and Mac. > The difference with Ada Libre would be the IDE and extra=20 > tools supplied by Adacore?? GNAT-GPL from the libre site, other than license differences, is optimized = by AdaCore with the build choices they make for their customers and using t= he same sources and tools as their PRO product. It also can lag a bit behin= d their PRO product but GNAT-GPL is a very solid build of gcc/ada and a goo= d demo of their PRO builds, less the PRO support of course which is AdaCore= 's real product and is worth every penny. If I had a project in AdaCore's niche at the moment and it had the funding = needed for it, I wouldn't think twice about PRO product, ie. their support.= (although maybe I'd use a fake name at this point when negotiating the con= tract ;) David Botton