Next public release of GNAT(?)

Next public release of GNAT(?)

[Frank]

Hi!

Is there any forecast on when(if?) the public/free GNAT 3-14 for Linux
becomes available?

Frank

Re: Next public release of GNAT(?)

[Gerhard Häring]

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')))

Re: Next public release of GNAT(?)

[Jean-Marc Bourguet]

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

Re: Next public release of GNAT(?)

[Stephen Leake]

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

Re: Next public release of GNAT(?)

[Stephen Leake]

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

Re: Next public release of GNAT(?)

[Jean-Marc Bourguet]

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

Re: Next public release of GNAT(?)

[Mark Johnson]

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

Re: Next public release of GNAT(?)

[Florian Weimer]

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?

Re: Next public release of GNAT(?)

[Stephen Leake]

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

Re: Next public release of GNAT(?)

[Robert Dewar]

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.

Re: Next public release of GNAT(?)

[Robert Dewar]

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.

Re: Next public release of GNAT(?)

[Robert Dewar]

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.

Re: Next public release of GNAT(?)

[Robert Dewar]

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

Re: Next public release of GNAT(?)

[Robert Dewar]

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.

Re: Next public release of GNAT(?)

[Robert Dewar]

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.

Re: Next public release of GNAT(?)

[Robert Dewar]

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

Re: Next public release of GNAT(?)

[Britt Snodgrass]

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

Re: Next public release of GNAT(?)

[Larry Kilgallen]

[-- 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 ?)

Re: Next public release of GNAT(?)

[Frank]

> 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

Re: Next public release of GNAT(?)

[Robert Dewar]

"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.

Re: Next public release of GNAT(?)

[Dale Pontius]

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

Re: Next public release of GNAT(?)

[Preben Randhol]

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/

Re: Next public release of GNAT(?)

[Jean-Marc Bourguet]

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

Re: Next public release of GNAT(?)

[Florian Weimer]

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

Re: Next public release of GNAT(?)

[Robert Dewar]

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.