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,fee1c99f4df8c011
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: kenner@lab.ultra.nyu.edu (Richard Kenner)
Subject: Re: GNAT extensions, recompilation (was Re: what DOES the GPL...)
Date: 1997/08/25
Message-ID: <5tscpi$hfr$1@news.nyu.edu>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 268466220
References: <5tquu7$djj$1@trumpet.uni-mannheim.de>
Organization: New York University Ultracomputer Research Lab
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-08-25T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


In article <5tquu7$djj$1@trumpet.uni-mannheim.de> mw@ipx2.rz.uni-mannheim.de (Marc Wachowitz) writes:
>Of course; if I'd ever find what looks like a GNAT bug using such a patched
>system, I'd certainly check whether it does also occur with the original
>distribution, and not blindly report it to innocent developers. This should
>go without saying, but I guess with users who don't even glimpse at system
>documentation, you've probably minimized what you're willing to assume.

One might indeed hope it would go without saying, but the number of
bug reports sent to the GCC bug list that were based on people using
highly experimental patches from "random" sources strongly suggests
that this is indeed something that it should not be assumed people know.