* Next public release of GNAT(?) @ 2002-01-09 7:58 Frank 2002-01-09 9:11 ` Gerhard Häring 0 siblings, 1 reply; 25+ messages in thread From: Frank @ 2002-01-09 7:58 UTC (permalink / raw) Hi! Is there any forecast on when(if?) the public/free GNAT 3-14 for Linux becomes available? Frank ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* Re: Next public release of GNAT(?) 2002-01-09 7:58 Next public release of GNAT(?) Frank @ 2002-01-09 9:11 ` Gerhard Häring 2002-01-09 9:25 ` Jean-Marc Bourguet ` (2 more replies) 0 siblings, 3 replies; 25+ messages in thread From: Gerhard Häring @ 2002-01-09 9:11 UTC (permalink / raw) Frank wrote in <ILS_7.24134$KQ3.444593@news1.oke.nextra.no>: > Hi! > > Is there any forecast on when(if?) the public/free GNAT 3-14 for Linux > becomes available? Yes, it will be the day after I managed to build GNAT from the gcc source tree. Gerhard -- mail: gerhard <at> bigfoot <dot> de registered Linux user #64239 web: http://www.cs.fhm.edu/~ifw00065/ public key at homepage public key fingerprint: DEC1 1D02 5743 1159 CD20 A4B6 7B22 6575 86AB 43C0 reduce(lambda x,y:x+y,map(lambda x:chr(ord(x)^42),tuple('zS^BED\nX_FOY\x0b'))) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* Re: Next public release of GNAT(?) 2002-01-09 9:11 ` Gerhard Häring @ 2002-01-09 9:25 ` Jean-Marc Bourguet 2002-01-09 16:19 ` Stephen Leake 2002-01-10 1:44 ` Robert Dewar 2002-01-09 16:16 ` Stephen Leake 2002-01-10 1:42 ` Robert Dewar 2 siblings, 2 replies; 25+ messages in thread From: Jean-Marc Bourguet @ 2002-01-09 9:25 UTC (permalink / raw) Gerhard H�ring <gerhard@bigfoot.de> writes: > Frank wrote in <ILS_7.24134$KQ3.444593@news1.oke.nextra.no>: > > Hi! > > > > Is there any forecast on when(if?) the public/free GNAT 3-14 for Linux > > becomes available? > > Yes, it will be the day after I managed to build GNAT from the gcc > source tree. AFAIK, what is present in the CVS tree is an evolution of GNAT 3.14 (which is still based on gcc 2.8). BTW, personnally, I'd not make public an executable I manage to build from non released sources. Yours, -- Jean-Marc ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* Re: Next public release of GNAT(?) 2002-01-09 9:25 ` Jean-Marc Bourguet @ 2002-01-09 16:19 ` Stephen Leake 2002-01-09 17:32 ` Jean-Marc Bourguet ` (3 more replies) 2002-01-10 1:44 ` Robert Dewar 1 sibling, 4 replies; 25+ messages in thread From: Stephen Leake @ 2002-01-09 16:19 UTC (permalink / raw) Jean-Marc Bourguet <jm@bourguet.org> writes: > Gerhard H�ring <gerhard@bigfoot.de> writes: > > > Frank wrote in <ILS_7.24134$KQ3.444593@news1.oke.nextra.no>: > > > Hi! > > > > > > Is there any forecast on when(if?) the public/free GNAT 3-14 for Linux > > > becomes available? > > > > Yes, it will be the day after I managed to build GNAT from the gcc > > source tree. > > AFAIK, what is present in the CVS tree is an evolution of GNAT 3.14 > (which is still based on gcc 2.8). No, the whole point of the gcc tree is that it is at gcc 3.0, and the Ada code builds on that. This will be the basis of the ACT 3.15 release. > BTW, personnally, I'd not make public an executable I manage to > build from non released sources. Hmm. What do you mean by "released"? By ACT, or by the gcc team? If the latter, I'd agree. -- -- Stephe ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* Re: Next public release of GNAT(?) 2002-01-09 16:19 ` Stephen Leake @ 2002-01-09 17:32 ` Jean-Marc Bourguet 2002-01-10 1:49 ` Robert Dewar 2002-01-09 18:30 ` Mark Johnson ` (2 subsequent siblings) 3 siblings, 1 reply; 25+ messages in thread From: Jean-Marc Bourguet @ 2002-01-09 17:32 UTC (permalink / raw) Stephen Leake <stephen.a.leake.1@gsfc.nasa.gov> writes: > Jean-Marc Bourguet <jm@bourguet.org> writes: > > > Gerhard H�ring <gerhard@bigfoot.de> writes: > > > > > Frank wrote in <ILS_7.24134$KQ3.444593@news1.oke.nextra.no>: > > > > Hi! > > > > > > > > Is there any forecast on when(if?) the public/free GNAT 3-14 for Linux > > > > becomes available? > > > > > > Yes, it will be the day after I managed to build GNAT from the gcc > > > source tree. > > > > AFAIK, what is present in the CVS tree is an evolution of GNAT 3.14 > > (which is still based on gcc 2.8). > > No, the whole point of the gcc tree is that it is at gcc 3.0, and the > Ada code builds on that. This will be the basis of the ACT 3.15 > release. There is a misunderstanding, my comment applied to GNAT 3.14, not to what is in the CVS tree. > > BTW, personnally, I'd not make public an executable I manage to > > build from non released sources. > > Hmm. What do you mean by "released"? By ACT, or by the gcc team? If > the latter, I'd agree. The gcc team obviously (but I don't think that gcc team will release the ada part without an agrement of Robert Dewar and from what I get the status about ada in 3.1 is "will be present if it is in a aceptable state") -- Jean-Marc ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* Re: Next public release of GNAT(?) 2002-01-09 17:32 ` Jean-Marc Bourguet @ 2002-01-10 1:49 ` Robert Dewar 0 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 2002-01-10 1:49 UTC (permalink / raw) Jean-Marc Bourguet <jm@bourguet.org> wrote in message news:<3c3c7eba$0$3190$626a54ce@news.free.fr>... > The gcc team obviously (but I don't think that gcc team > will release the ada part without an agrement of Robert > Dewar It's not just me, several people share the role of fsf maintainer of GNAT. > and from what I get the status about ada in 3.1 is "will > be present if it is in a acceptable state Right, so the question is what is acceptable, and we are discussing that ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* Re: Next public release of GNAT(?) 2002-01-09 16:19 ` Stephen Leake 2002-01-09 17:32 ` Jean-Marc Bourguet @ 2002-01-09 18:30 ` Mark Johnson 2002-01-10 1:54 ` Robert Dewar 2002-01-09 19:32 ` Florian Weimer 2002-01-10 1:47 ` Robert Dewar 3 siblings, 1 reply; 25+ messages in thread From: Mark Johnson @ 2002-01-09 18:30 UTC (permalink / raw) Stephen Leake wrote: > [snip] > No, the whole point of the gcc tree is that it is at gcc 3.0, and the > Ada code builds on that. This will be the basis of the ACT 3.15 > release. > That statement may not be true. I'm running a 3.15w (wavefront) from ACT and it is still built on gcc --version still says 2.8.1. If past history is a guide, that will be the basis of the supported release 3.15a (and presumably the public version). I have yet to see any wavefronts from ACT built on gcc 3.0. Of course, time will tell. --Mark ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* Re: Next public release of GNAT(?) 2002-01-09 18:30 ` Mark Johnson @ 2002-01-10 1:54 ` Robert Dewar 0 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 2002-01-10 1:54 UTC (permalink / raw) Mark Johnson <Mark_H_Johnson@Raytheon.com> wrote in message news:<3C3C8C60.1046F567@Raytheon.com>... > I have yet to see any wavefronts from ACT built on gcc > 3.0. Of course, time will tell. Mark has only the perspective of use on Linux, where we indeed have not distributed any wavefronts or beta versions built with GCC 3. However, there are other targets on which we have started to give customers beta versions of GCC 3 based technology. These include the Ultrasparc (64-bit) VxWorks version (which is not supported in GCC 2), and the HPUX and VMS versions, where we need GCC 3 for the new efficient exception handling. The GCC 3 version of GNAT is getting closer, but it's still not quite there yet, which is why we decided to release a stable 3.15 based on GCC 2.8 technology. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* Re: Next public release of GNAT(?) 2002-01-09 16:19 ` Stephen Leake 2002-01-09 17:32 ` Jean-Marc Bourguet 2002-01-09 18:30 ` Mark Johnson @ 2002-01-09 19:32 ` Florian Weimer 2002-01-09 20:22 ` Stephen Leake 2002-01-10 1:56 ` Robert Dewar 2002-01-10 1:47 ` Robert Dewar 3 siblings, 2 replies; 25+ messages in thread From: Florian Weimer @ 2002-01-09 19:32 UTC (permalink / raw) Stephen Leake <stephen.a.leake.1@gsfc.nasa.gov> writes: > No, the whole point of the gcc tree is that it is at gcc 3.0, and the > Ada code builds on that. No, the Ada code is build on top of the HEAD, which is GCC 3.1. > This will be the basis of the ACT 3.15 release. I haven't read an announcement in this area. Could you point me to it? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* Re: Next public release of GNAT(?) 2002-01-09 19:32 ` Florian Weimer @ 2002-01-09 20:22 ` Stephen Leake 2002-01-10 1:56 ` Robert Dewar 1 sibling, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread From: Stephen Leake @ 2002-01-09 20:22 UTC (permalink / raw) Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de> writes: > Stephen Leake <stephen.a.leake.1@gsfc.nasa.gov> writes: > > > No, the whole point of the gcc tree is that it is at gcc 3.0, and the > > Ada code builds on that. > > No, the Ada code is build on top of the HEAD, which is GCC 3.1. Ok, I'm behind :). > > This will be the basis of the ACT 3.15 release. > > I haven't read an announcement in this area. Could you point me to > it? No official announcement from ACT, just my gleanings from Robert Dewar's posts here. As always, he makes no firm promises, but I believe that is the intent. -- -- Stephe ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* Re: Next public release of GNAT(?) 2002-01-09 19:32 ` Florian Weimer 2002-01-09 20:22 ` Stephen Leake @ 2002-01-10 1:56 ` Robert Dewar 2002-01-15 14:50 ` Dale Pontius 1 sibling, 1 reply; 25+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 2002-01-10 1:56 UTC (permalink / raw) Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de> wrote in message news:<874rlv8gmt.fsf@deneb.enyo.de>... > Stephen Leake <stephen.a.leake.1@gsfc.nasa.gov> writes: > > > No, the whole point of the gcc tree is that it is at gcc 3.0, and the > > Ada code builds on that. > > No, the Ada code is build on top of the HEAD, which is > GCC 3.1. Thanks Florian for stepping in to try to inject some correct and helpful information :-) > > > This will be the basis of the ACT 3.15 release. > > I haven't read an announcement in this area. Could you > point me to it? No one can point you to an announcement, because the statement is false. One time in the past, we had hoped that the next release of GNAT after 3.14 would be GNAT 5.0, based on GCC 3, but since it is taking longer than we expected, we decided a 3.15 release based on 2.8 was useful in the interim. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* Re: Next public release of GNAT(?) 2002-01-10 1:56 ` Robert Dewar @ 2002-01-15 14:50 ` Dale Pontius 2002-01-15 17:09 ` Preben Randhol 2002-01-15 21:08 ` Robert Dewar 0 siblings, 2 replies; 25+ messages in thread From: Dale Pontius @ 2002-01-15 14:50 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <5ee5b646.0201091756.52f0a35a@posting.google.com>, dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar) writes: > Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de> wrote in message news:<874rlv8gmt.fsf@deneb.enyo.de>... >> Stephen Leake <stephen.a.leake.1@gsfc.nasa.gov> writes: >> >> > No, the whole point of the gcc tree is that it is at gcc 3.0, and the >> > Ada code builds on that. >> >> No, the Ada code is build on top of the HEAD, which is >> GCC 3.1. > > Thanks Florian for stepping in to try to inject some > correct and helpful information :-) > >> >> > This will be the basis of the ACT 3.15 release. >> >> I haven't read an announcement in this area. Could you >> point me to it? > > No one can point you to an announcement, because the > statement is false. One time in the past, we had hoped > that the next release of GNAT after 3.14 would be > GNAT 5.0, based on GCC 3, but since it is taking longer Pardon me if this is an old story, but what happened to GNAT 4.0? I presume you have some rationale for skipping to 5.0, could you share? Dale Pontius NOT speaking for IBM ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* Re: Next public release of GNAT(?) 2002-01-15 14:50 ` Dale Pontius @ 2002-01-15 17:09 ` Preben Randhol 2002-01-15 17:17 ` Jean-Marc Bourguet 2002-01-15 21:08 ` Robert Dewar 1 sibling, 1 reply; 25+ messages in thread From: Preben Randhol @ 2002-01-15 17:09 UTC (permalink / raw) On 15 Jan 2002 14:50:51 GMT, Dale Pontius wrote: > Pardon me if this is an old story, but what happened to GNAT 4.0? > I presume you have some rationale for skipping to 5.0, could you > share? Internal release? Preben -- () Join the worldwide campaign to protect fundamental human rights. '||} {||' http://www.amnesty.org/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* Re: Next public release of GNAT(?) 2002-01-15 17:09 ` Preben Randhol @ 2002-01-15 17:17 ` Jean-Marc Bourguet 2002-01-15 20:33 ` Florian Weimer 0 siblings, 1 reply; 25+ messages in thread From: Jean-Marc Bourguet @ 2002-01-15 17:17 UTC (permalink / raw) Preben Randhol <randhol+abuse@pvv.org> writes: > On 15 Jan 2002 14:50:51 GMT, Dale Pontius wrote: > > Pardon me if this is an old story, but what happened to GNAT 4.0? > > I presume you have some rationale for skipping to 5.0, could you > > share? > > Internal release? Formally valided release, if memory serve. -- Jean-Marc ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* Re: Next public release of GNAT(?) 2002-01-15 17:17 ` Jean-Marc Bourguet @ 2002-01-15 20:33 ` Florian Weimer 0 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread From: Florian Weimer @ 2002-01-15 20:33 UTC (permalink / raw) Jean-Marc Bourguet <jm@bourguet.org> writes: > Formally valided release, if memory serve. You are probably right: http://www.adaic.org/compilers/cpl/lists/CPL-fvend.html ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* Re: Next public release of GNAT(?) 2002-01-15 14:50 ` Dale Pontius 2002-01-15 17:09 ` Preben Randhol @ 2002-01-15 21:08 ` Robert Dewar 1 sibling, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 2002-01-15 21:08 UTC (permalink / raw) pontius@btv.MBI.com.invalid (Dale Pontius) wrote in message news:<a21fkb$ui8$1@news.btv.ibm.com>... > Pardon me if this is an old story, but what happened to > GNAT 4.0? > I presume you have some rationale for skipping to 5.0, > could you share? Yes, an old story indeed, early on we used 4.0 as a designation for the officially validated version, and did not want to cause confusion by reusing this designation for something else. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* Re: Next public release of GNAT(?) 2002-01-09 16:19 ` Stephen Leake ` (2 preceding siblings ...) 2002-01-09 19:32 ` Florian Weimer @ 2002-01-10 1:47 ` Robert Dewar 3 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 2002-01-10 1:47 UTC (permalink / raw) Stephen Leake <stephen.a.leake.1@gsfc.nasa.gov> wrote in message news:<u666b1oqw.fsf@gsfc.nasa.gov>... > No, the whole point of the gcc tree is that it is at gcc > 3.0, and the > Ada code builds on that. True, although you really mean 3.x at this stage > This will be the basis of the ACT 3.15 release. Please be VERY careful about making such statements on behalf of ACT, we prefer if people avoid spreading false information about our plans, because it confuses people. In fact this is completely wrong. 3.15 will still be based on 2.8.1, because the 3.x version of GNAT is definitely not stable yet (we are still failing dozens of our fixed test suite -- not so bad in a suite of over 7000 tests, but certainly not up to our QA standards. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* Re: Next public release of GNAT(?) 2002-01-09 9:25 ` Jean-Marc Bourguet 2002-01-09 16:19 ` Stephen Leake @ 2002-01-10 1:44 ` Robert Dewar 1 sibling, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 2002-01-10 1:44 UTC (permalink / raw) Jean-Marc Bourguet <jm@bourguet.org> wrote in message news:<3c3c0ca8$0$3190$626a54ce@news.free.fr>... > AFAIK, what is present in the CVS tree is an evolution of > GNAT 3.14 > (which is still based on gcc 2.8). Sort of, see later comments in this thread > > BTW, personnally, I'd not make public an executable I manage to build > from non released sources. > > Yours, No reason not to make such public releases if they clearly state the provenance. If you build from shaky snapshots, the result may be shaky, but that does not mean it is not interesting for experimental, research and hobbyist purposes. Anyone using such a release for critical production is certainly asking for trouble! I would encourage people to make such builds available, because not everyone can achieve these builds on their own. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* Re: Next public release of GNAT(?) 2002-01-09 9:11 ` Gerhard Häring 2002-01-09 9:25 ` Jean-Marc Bourguet @ 2002-01-09 16:16 ` Stephen Leake 2002-01-10 2:03 ` Robert Dewar 2002-01-10 1:42 ` Robert Dewar 2 siblings, 1 reply; 25+ messages in thread From: Stephen Leake @ 2002-01-09 16:16 UTC (permalink / raw) Gerhard =?iso-8859-15?Q?H=E4ring?= <gerhard@bigfoot.de> writes: > Frank wrote in <ILS_7.24134$KQ3.444593@news1.oke.nextra.no>: > > Hi! > > > > Is there any forecast on when(if?) the public/free GNAT 3-14 for Linux > > becomes available? > > Yes, it will be the day after I managed to build GNAT from the gcc > source tree. Actually, that will be closer to GNAT 3.15; a lot of work has been done since 3.14, and that work is reflected in the gcc source tree. In addition, any release based on the gcc source tree will not have the same quality aura as an ACT public release, since ACT has much more strict quality controls than gcc in general. ACT seems to be getting into the habit of releasing the "previous" version as public, keeping the "current" version for supported customers. I'm not objecting; any public release is fine with me. On that basis, the answer to the question above is "the day after the ACT customer release of 3.15" :). -- -- Stephe ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* Re: Next public release of GNAT(?) 2002-01-09 16:16 ` Stephen Leake @ 2002-01-10 2:03 ` Robert Dewar 2002-01-10 7:27 ` Britt Snodgrass 2002-01-12 10:31 ` Frank 0 siblings, 2 replies; 25+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 2002-01-10 2:03 UTC (permalink / raw) Stephen Leake <stephen.a.leake.1@gsfc.nasa.gov> wrote in message news:<uadvn1ouh.fsf@gsfc.nasa.gov>... > Actually, that will be closer to GNAT 3.15; a lot of work > has been done since 3.14, and that work is reflected in > the gcc source tree. Closer, but not the same at all. There are major differences between the source bases for 3.15 and 5.00. > In addition, any release based on the gcc source tree > will not have the same quality aura as an ACT public > release, since ACT has much more strict quality controls > than gcc in general. In particular, we have access to the ACT internal test suite and the Compaq (formerly DEC) test suite, which together provide a very extensive regression testing facility. Of course bugs we find and fix will eventually find their way into the GCC tree, but changes are constantly being made to GCC that break things, so if you take the snapshots on a particular day, there are no guarantees. > ACT seems to be getting into the habit of releasing the > "previous" version as public, keeping the "current" > version for supported customers. Actually the two schedules are completely unrelated. The 3.14 public release has been delayed because we have been putting those resources into the GCC 3 based source release for gnu.org instead. > I'm not objecting; any public release is fine with me. > On that basis, the answer to the question above is "the > day after the ACT customer release of 3.15" :). For sure that is false, the period coming up to a major release of GNAT Pro and following it for a couple of months are a time when our release facilities are fully engaged. We are trying to get the 3.14p release out, at least for GNU/Linux in the near future, but if we don't make it, then it will be delayed until well after the 3.15 releases. Actually we have some internal debate here about the value of the public releases given the development of the public FSF GCC version. The latter is perfectly suitable for research and student use, which is the primary target of the public versions. Moreover, for general Free Software being developed in Ada, we think it much more important that it compiles and runs on the GCC 3 based FSF version than on an obsolete 2.8 based technology. The requirements for production use are of course radically different. Robert Dewar Ada Core Technologies ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* Re: Next public release of GNAT(?) 2002-01-10 2:03 ` Robert Dewar @ 2002-01-10 7:27 ` Britt Snodgrass 2002-01-12 10:31 ` Frank 1 sibling, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread From: Britt Snodgrass @ 2002-01-10 7:27 UTC (permalink / raw) dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar) wrote in message news:<5ee5b646.0201091803.70a8129@posting.google.com>... > Actually the two schedules are completely unrelated. The > 3.14 public release has been delayed because we have been > putting those resources into the GCC 3 based source release for > gnu.org instead. > Given that GNAT PRO 3.14a1 was released to supported customers some time ago (according to the ACT Euorpe web site), why would a publicly released GNAT 3.14p need be anything more than a renamed 3.14a1 ? Just curious... Britt Snodgrass ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* Re: Next public release of GNAT(?) 2002-01-10 2:03 ` Robert Dewar 2002-01-10 7:27 ` Britt Snodgrass @ 2002-01-12 10:31 ` Frank 2002-01-15 3:55 ` Robert Dewar 1 sibling, 1 reply; 25+ messages in thread From: Frank @ 2002-01-12 10:31 UTC (permalink / raw) > Actually we have some internal debate here about the value > of the public releases given the development of the public > FSF GCC version. The latter is perfectly suitable for > research and student use, which is the primary target of > the public versions. Moreover, for general Free Software > being developed in Ada, we think it much more important > that it compiles and runs on the GCC 3 based FSF version > than on an obsolete 2.8 based technology. The requirements > for production use are of course radically different. Hi! How many error reports do ACT get from users of the public release? Do you usually get reports on problems that are already detected by paying customers? Do you get many reports, from users of the public release, that are invalid alltogether(hence waste of your time)? Frank ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* Re: Next public release of GNAT(?) 2002-01-12 10:31 ` Frank @ 2002-01-15 3:55 ` Robert Dewar 0 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 2002-01-15 3:55 UTC (permalink / raw) "Frank" <franjoe@frisurf.no> wrote in message news:<qgU%7.348$Tr2.15839@news2.ulv.nextra.no>... > How many error reports do ACT get from users of the > public release? A few, mostly from a small group that sends reports > Do you usually get reports on problems that are already > detected by paying customers? Sometimes, not often > Do you get many reports, from users of the public > release, that are invalid Yes, quite often, we ignore them > alltogether(hence waste of your time)? They don't waste our time, because we simply ignore them As time goes by, it will be more appropriate to report errors using the standard gcc reporting mehanisms anyway. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* Re: Next public release of GNAT(?) 2002-01-09 9:11 ` Gerhard Häring 2002-01-09 9:25 ` Jean-Marc Bourguet 2002-01-09 16:16 ` Stephen Leake @ 2002-01-10 1:42 ` Robert Dewar 2002-01-11 11:59 ` Larry Kilgallen 2 siblings, 1 reply; 25+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 2002-01-10 1:42 UTC (permalink / raw) Gerhard H�ring <gerhard@bigfoot.de> wrote in message news:<slrna3o297.2bn.gerhard@lilith.my-fqdn.de>... > Frank wrote in <ILS_7.24134$KQ3.444593@news1.oke.nextra.no>: > > Hi! > > > > Is there any forecast on when(if?) the public/free GNAT 3-14 for Linux > > becomes available? > > Yes, it will be the day after I managed to build GNAT from the gcc > source tree. > > Gerhard Well as usual, the amount of misinformation propagated on CLA is large, threatening in this thread to outweigh the valid information :-) No, the gcc source tree definitely does NOT correspond to GNAT 3.14. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* Re: Next public release of GNAT(?) 2002-01-10 1:42 ` Robert Dewar @ 2002-01-11 11:59 ` Larry Kilgallen 0 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread From: Larry Kilgallen @ 2002-01-11 11:59 UTC (permalink / raw) [-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --] [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 806 bytes --] In article <5ee5b646.0201091742.8374ea2@posting.google.com>, dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar) writes: > Gerhard H�ring <gerhard@bigfoot.de> wrote in message news:<slrna3o297.2bn.gerhard@lilith.my-fqdn.de>... >> Frank wrote in <ILS_7.24134$KQ3.444593@news1.oke.nextra.no>: >> > Hi! >> > >> > Is there any forecast on when(if?) the public/free GNAT 3-14 for Linux >> > becomes available? >> >> Yes, it will be the day after I managed to build GNAT from the gcc >> source tree. >> >> Gerhard > > Well as usual, the amount of misinformation propagated > on CLA is large, threatening in this thread to outweigh > the valid information :-) Perhaps in general, but Gerhard's post seemed to me an neat description of the degree of oversight his own work gets from Mr. Murphy. (or might it be Ms. Murphy ?) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2002-01-15 21:08 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 25+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2002-01-09 7:58 Next public release of GNAT(?) Frank 2002-01-09 9:11 ` Gerhard Häring 2002-01-09 9:25 ` Jean-Marc Bourguet 2002-01-09 16:19 ` Stephen Leake 2002-01-09 17:32 ` Jean-Marc Bourguet 2002-01-10 1:49 ` Robert Dewar 2002-01-09 18:30 ` Mark Johnson 2002-01-10 1:54 ` Robert Dewar 2002-01-09 19:32 ` Florian Weimer 2002-01-09 20:22 ` Stephen Leake 2002-01-10 1:56 ` Robert Dewar 2002-01-15 14:50 ` Dale Pontius 2002-01-15 17:09 ` Preben Randhol 2002-01-15 17:17 ` Jean-Marc Bourguet 2002-01-15 20:33 ` Florian Weimer 2002-01-15 21:08 ` Robert Dewar 2002-01-10 1:47 ` Robert Dewar 2002-01-10 1:44 ` Robert Dewar 2002-01-09 16:16 ` Stephen Leake 2002-01-10 2:03 ` Robert Dewar 2002-01-10 7:27 ` Britt Snodgrass 2002-01-12 10:31 ` Frank 2002-01-15 3:55 ` Robert Dewar 2002-01-10 1:42 ` Robert Dewar 2002-01-11 11:59 ` Larry Kilgallen
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox