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,ef949f5a82347361 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Robert Dewar Subject: Re: How to build gnat on top of egcs-1.1.2, please? Date: 1999/05/05 Message-ID: <7gq0bu$ts0$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 474380353 References: <372FE594.818795BA@here.org> <37305FDB.44385920@aasaa.ofe.org> X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x16.dejanews.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 205.232.38.4 Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion X-Article-Creation-Date: Wed May 05 17:49:52 1999 GMT Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/3.01SC-SGI (X11; I; IRIX 5.3 IP22) Date: 1999-05-05T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <37305FDB.44385920@aasaa.ofe.org>, David Starner wrote: > "David C. Hoos, Sr." wrote: > > On Wed, 3 Feb 1999, Juergen Pfeifer wrote: > > > - Should we by default build packages based on egcs? > > > > For the time being, I recommend the answer should clearly be: no. > The answer should probably be no. EGCS produces better C & FORTRAN, and > is far more C++ standard compliant than GCC 2.8.1. If you don't want to > mix versions, and Ada relibility is not very importatant, then go with > an EGCS solution On the other hand, as several people have documented from time to time, it is no big deal to mix versions, so that is the recommended approach for now. Robert Dewar Ada Core Technologies -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own