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: 2001-12-07 20:24:25 PST
Path: archiver1.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: 7 Dec 2001 20:24:24 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
Message-ID: <5ee5b646.0112072024.232d7a9c@posting.google.com>
References: <9a575af3.0110020747.2304ce86@posting.google.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>
 <5ee5b646.0112052127.421f6d4@posting.google.com>
 <87vgfjerf3.fsf@deneb.enyo.de> <uoflbum5a.fsf@gsfc.nasa.gov>
 <87snam210j.fsf@deneb.enyo.de>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 205.232.38.14
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1007785465 25170 127.0.0.1 (8 Dec 2001 04:24:25
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: 8 Dec 2001 04:24:25 GMT
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:17623
Date: 2001-12-08T04:24:25+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de> wrote in message news:<87snam210j.fsf@deneb.enyo.de>...
> Stephen Leake <stephen.a.leake.1@gsfc.nasa.gov> writes:
> 
> >> > Although it can sometimes be the other way round if we fall a few
> >> > days behind in keeping the trees synchronized.
> >> 
> >> Do you really think "a few days behind" is an accurate description of
> >> the current situation?
> >
> > Since Robert is in a position to know, this seems a silly question.
> 
> I'm a bit puzzled because he mentioned a change to the sources on
> 2001-11-07 which hasn't made it yet to the official tree.

Hard to comment unless you are a little less mysterious.
What change are you talking about.