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: 103376,13b7917466f2d19
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-12-05 21:27:25 PST
Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail
From: dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: GNAT and GCC 3.0
Date: 5 Dec 2001 21:27:24 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
Message-ID: <5ee5b646.0112052127.421f6d4@posting.google.com>
References: <9a575af3.0110020747.2304ce86@posting.google.com>
 <9pr6e8$aai1@news.cis.okstate.edu>
 <%biw7.8780$H81.3054034106@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com>
 <m3g08sil5p.fsf@yakisoba.forte-intl.com>
 <5ee5b646.0110092211.a69a5f@posting.google.com>
 <m3669o0y2u.fsf@yakisoba.forte-inOrganization: LJK Software
 <TcK5AtkXbXj1@eisner.encompasserve.org>
 <m37ks1crl3.fsf@yakisoba.forte-intl.com> <3C0E933F.86CA2FB8@usa.com>
 <m3ofldb58t.fsf@yakisoba.forte-intl.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 205.232.38.14
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1007616444 28780 127.0.0.1 (6 Dec 2001 05:27:24
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: 6 Dec 2001 05:27:24 GMT
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:17499
Date: 2001-12-06T05:27:24+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Ronald Cole <ronald@forte-intl.com> wrote in message news:<m3ofldb58t.fsf@yakisoba.forte-intl.com>...
> If you don't think it's a threat, then how about volunteering to
> provide me with wavefront sources?  I'm interested in comparing them
> against what's currently in the gcc cvs tree.


The only difference between the wavefront sources and
what is in the gcc cvs tree is that the latter is modified
to be compatible with GCC 3, while as our qualified
wavefronts are still GCC 2.8.1 based. Well that's not
quite right, typically the gcc cvs tree is a few days
ahead of the wavefronts, since there is typically a few
days delay in fully qualifying binary wavefronts. Although
it can sometimes be the other way round if we fall a few
days behind in keeping the trees synchronized. It can also
be the case that patches submitted to the gcc tree have not
been back syncrhonized into the act tree, but in general
the difference is not more than a few days.