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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,ee05c52b242afbad,start
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dcurry@ponder.csci.unt.edu (David Curry)
Subject: GNAT 3.07 v. GNAT 3.09
Date: 1997/04/01
Message-ID: <5hs1t2$ehl@hermes.acs.unt.edu>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 229961564
Organization: University of North Texas
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-04-01T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Being new to Ada, I downloaded the GNAT 3.09 binaries for Linux and tried
to compile TASH 7.6.  On almost every body file, the compiler exited with
a message regarding an internal bug in GNAT.  However, it did compile
everything in its distribution (dining philosophers, etc.).  I then
download GNAT 3.07 and TASH 7.6 compiled clean.  Is 3.07 generally more
stable than 3.09 or is this problem caused be something else?

  ________________________________________________________________________
                                           _||_              ____         
  For every complex problem, there is a    -||-             /o   \/        
  solution that is simple, neat, and wrong. ||  David Curry \____/\        
                  -- H. L. Mencken          ||  dcurry@ponder.csci.unt.edu 
  ________________________________________________________________________