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: 103376,30a9bb3017fa58dd X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 1025b4,959627a08fbc77c5 X-Google-Attributes: gid1025b4,public From: bothner@cygnus.com (Per Bothner) Subject: Re: GNAT versions ( was :Ada compiler for PC?) Date: 1999/04/26 Message-ID: <7g3klg$26p$1@rtl.cygnus.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 471363725 References: <7fndu7$im4$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <7fud3l$hqi$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <7g0bdf$3q9$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> Organization: Cygnus Solutions, CA Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,gnu.misc.discuss Date: 1999-04-26T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Maciej Stachowiak wrote: > ... I suspect quite a few major features appeared in the EGCS > tree before they were shipped to Cygnus customers. In article <7g0bdf$3q9$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, Robert Dewar wrote: >That would be an interesting suspicion to back up. I know >only of major features in the Cygnus tree that are not in EGCS. Well, I can't think of a single Gcc feature, major or otherwise, that was in our standard customer release before being in EGCS. Note: I am talking about the standard GNUPro product; not contracted deliverables made to a specific customer. (Obviously, if somebody pays for a new port to an unannounced chip, we are not going to put into Egcs before it is announced!) But in general, customers do *not* get major features before Egcs. Since we merge *from* Egcs to our internal tree, rather than vice versa, the check-in policy at Cygnus is: Nothing gets into our internal tree unless it is in Egcs *or* specially marked as being Cygnus only or "sanitized". That should make it obvious that the default is to check things into Egcs first or at the same time. >Yes, of course Cygnus drops developments to EGCS, no one >is saying that they don't. It is just that, as in the case >of GNAT, there is usually a lag between the development >of new features and their dropping into EGCS. As I have pointed out, this is generally not true. It may be worth pointing out that Dewar's company ACT is a competitor of Cygnus, though we have mostly kept apart. >Indeed there are features in GNUpro that have not >yet been put in EGCS. I am sure they all will be, just as >all internal GNAT developments are eventually made public. Well, some parts of our product are non-free, and there are no plans to change that (though the mix of what is free and what is non-free will of course change). Specifically, Source Navigator (which is a separate product from GNUPro) is non-free, as is gdbtk (which I believe *is* part of GNUPro). >Right now, GNAT is more analogous to how Cygnus handles >GDB. That may change in the future, but Cygnus feels that >since it does almost all the work on GDB currently, it is >not obviously worth their while to invest resources in an >EGCS like effort for GDB. That may well change in the >future, if other parties start doing major work on GDB. I don't think it is proper for you to say what "Cygnus feels". At the very least put in a "my guess is ...". The reason EGCS was started was because things has reached a crisis point. This happened while the official Gcc maintainer was working for ACT. Gdb has also had problems the last year with openness and timely releases; we are working on improving this. A public cvs repository is one possibility (but I am not in the gdb group, so I cannot speak for them). -- --Per Bothner Cygnus Solutions bothner@cygnus.com http://www.cygnus.com/~bothner