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,LOTS_OF_MONEY autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,53c5fea49e77990c X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-04-03 07:52:05 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail From: dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Ada Dot Net ? Date: 3 Apr 2002 07:52:05 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Message-ID: <5ee5b646.0204030752.1b961dcf@posting.google.com> References: <3CA87193.F6EEB08F@despammed.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 1017849125 25893 127.0.0.1 (3 Apr 2002 15:52:05 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 3 Apr 2002 15:52:05 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:22054 Date: 2002-04-03T15:52:05+00:00 List-Id: "Steve Doiel" wrote in message news:... > You're probably looking at the GCC 3.1 release criteria. > It was agreed some time ago that the integrety of the Ada > support in the 3.1 release would not > be part of the general GCC release criteria Relase criteria have nothing to do with quality. They have to do with required tests to be performed by the gcc community before the release is permitted. Since virtually all the testing is being done by ACT at the moment, this is really rather irrelevant. It certainly is not the case that the GCC 3 based GNAT is as reliable as the GCC 2 based GNAT yet, but it is in pretty good shape (certainly well beyond 3.14p for instance