GCC 3.0 released

GCC 3.0 released

[Ted Dennison]

I noticed this morning that GCC 3.0 has finally been released. ( see
http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-3.0/gcc-3.0.html ). Does anyone "in the know" have any
information about how ACT is comming along with Gnat? It would be nice to have
some idea about how much longer the current "two library" situation is going to
have to go on. 


---
T.E.D.    homepage   - http://www.telepath.com/dennison/Ted/TED.html
          home email - mailto:dennison@telepath.com

Re: GCC 3.0 released

[Laurent Guerby]

Ted Dennison<dennison@telepath.com> writes:
> I noticed this morning that GCC 3.0 has finally been released. ( see
> http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-3.0/gcc-3.0.html ). Does anyone "in the know"
> have any information about how ACT is comming along with Gnat? It
> would be nice to have some idea about how much longer the current
> "two library" situation is going to have to go on.

At the end of May, Richard Kenner announced June 1st as a possible
date for the commit of the GNAT sources into GCC CVS. We're June 18th
and still no commit and no further news. I'm on the GCC list and will
forward to comp.lang.ada when the commit happens (and ask for
volunteers to help packaging/testing on whichever platform people use
:).

-- 
Laurent Guerby <guerby@acm.org>

Re: GCC 3.0 released

[Ted Dennison]

In article <86ithtpvmp.fsf@acm.org>, Laurent Guerby says...
>and still no commit and no further news. I'm on the GCC list and will
>forward to comp.lang.ada when the commit happens (and ask for
>volunteers to help packaging/testing on whichever platform people use
>:).

Cool. I guess the next question then is, are there any good Free Software
InstallShield clones for Windows? I've been half-looking for one for the
SETI@Home Service for a while now, but it looks as if Gnat will soon be needing
one as well. :-)

---
T.E.D.    homepage   - http://www.telepath.com/dennison/Ted/TED.html
          home email - mailto:dennison@telepath.com

Re: GCC 3.0 released

[Sune Falck]

In article <Z2rX6.13247$pb1.484698@www.newsranger.com>, Ted Dennison<dennison@telepath.com> wrote:
>
>Cool. I guess the next question then is, are there any good Free Software
>InstallShield clones for Windows? I've been half-looking for one for the
>SETI@Home Service for a while now, but it looks as if Gnat will soon be needing
>one as well. :-)

Take a look at Inno Setup at http://www.jrsoftware.org/
It is a free and in my opinion a usable and mature piece of software.

Sune Falck

Re: GCC 3.0 released

[Ted Dennison]

In article <6srX6.1410$e5.526574@newsb.telia.net>, Sune Falck says...
>
>In article <Z2rX6.13247$pb1.484698@www.newsranger.com>, Ted Dennison<dennison@telepath.com> wrote:
>>
>>Cool. I guess the next question then is, are there any good Free Software
>>InstallShield clones for Windows? I've been half-looking for one for the
>Take a look at Inno Setup at http://www.jrsoftware.org/
>It is a free and in my opinion a usable and mature piece of software.

It appears to be Free as well (although the license terms lean disconcertingly
towards the BSD side of things). Unless there's something I'm missing, it looks
like it ought to be serviceable. To be really safe, itd be nice to have the
opinion of a qualified lawyer as to whether it is combinable with GPL'ed and
GMGPL'ed code, but I don't think we have that luxury.

---
T.E.D.    homepage   - http://www.telepath.com/dennison/Ted/TED.html
          home email - mailto:dennison@telepath.com

VMS/GNAT/GCC-3.x, was: Re: GCC 3.0 released

[Simon Clubley]

On 18 Jun 2001 19:04:30 +0200, in article <86ithtpvmp.fsf@acm.org>, Laurent
Guerby wrote:
>
>Ted Dennison<dennison@telepath.com> writes:
>> I noticed this morning that GCC 3.0 has finally been released. ( see
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-3.0/gcc-3.0.html ). Does anyone "in the know"
>> have any information about how ACT is comming along with Gnat? It
>> would be nice to have some idea about how much longer the current
>> "two library" situation is going to have to go on.
>
>At the end of May, Richard Kenner announced June 1st as a possible
>date for the commit of the GNAT sources into GCC CVS. We're June 18th
>and still no commit and no further news. I'm on the GCC list and will
>forward to comp.lang.ada when the commit happens (and ask for
>volunteers to help packaging/testing on whichever platform people use
>:).
>
>-- 
>Laurent Guerby <guerby@acm.org>

Does anyone know if VMS will be supported by ACT in this upcoming release ?

I had a look in a GCC 3.0 snapshot from a few days ago, but it's unclear
if VMS support is actually in 3.0 itself. There are some command procedures,
but no installation instructions that I could find, so these could just be
old files.

[My interest in Ada is not work related, so I don't know if this has already
been announced to the supported customers.]

Simon.

-- 
Simon Clubley, simon_clubley@remove_me.excite.com-Earth.UFP
Worrying idea #101: What if Microsoft goes into the Ada compiler business ?

Re: GCC 3.0 released

[Florian Weimer]

Laurent Guerby <guerby@acm.org> writes:

> At the end of May, Richard Kenner announced June 1st as a possible
> date for the commit of the GNAT sources into GCC CVS. We're June 18th
> and still no commit and no further news.

Yes, that's true.  Shall we guess what is causing problems?  Legal
matters (i.e. the copyright assignment to the FSF)?

> I'm on the GCC list and will forward to comp.lang.ada when the
> commit happens (and ask for volunteers to help packaging/testing on
> whichever platform people use :).

I've spotted a few defects in the last public version I need to
fix, but before doing that, I'd like to test a more recent version.
(Standard answer from report@gnat.com: 'We have already fixed this in
the newest release.', and I'd rather avoid duplicating work others
have done much more competently. :-/)

Re: GCC 3.0 released

[Florian Weimer]

Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de> writes:

>> At the end of May, Richard Kenner announced June 1st as a possible
>> date for the commit of the GNAT sources into GCC CVS. We're June 18th
>> and still no commit and no further news.
> 
> Yes, that's true.  Shall we guess what is causing problems?

Robert Dewar has just posted on the GCC list, and he said that ACT is
busy releasing 3.14a (?).

Re: GCC 3.0 released

[Florian Weimer]

Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de> writes:

>> Yes, that's true.  Shall we guess what is causing problems?
> 
> Robert Dewar has just posted on the GCC list, and he said that ACT is
> busy releasing 3.14a (?).

3.14a1 (note the one).  I've completely missed this little extra
digit.

(I think you can call me Ingrid now.)

Re: GCC 3.0 released

[tmoran]

>3.14a1 (note the one).  I've completely missed this little extra digit.
  Is there a 3.14p yet?

Re: GCC 3.0 released

[Ronald Cole]

tmoran@acm.org writes:
> >3.14a1 (note the one).  I've completely missed this little extra digit.
>   Is there a 3.14p yet?

Wait a year.

-- 
Forte International, P.O. Box 1412, Ridgecrest, CA  93556-1412
Ronald Cole <ronald@forte-intl.com>      Phone: (760) 499-9142
President, CEO                             Fax: (760) 499-9152
My GPG fingerprint: C3AF 4BE9 BEA6 F1C2 B084  4A88 8851 E6C8 69E3 B00B

Re: GCC 3.0 released

[Ted Dennison]

In article <m3wv686k1i.fsf@yakisoba.forte-intl.com>, Ronald Cole says...
>
>tmoran@acm.org writes:
>>   Is there a 3.14p yet?
>
>Wait a year.

That's probably a *smidge* harsh. :-)

But the sequence is right. In the past, ACT has released X.YZa releases to all
their supported customers before they started worrying about making X.YZp (the
"student" release). According to what I read in the gcc mailing list, it looks
like 3.14a is a gcc 2.8.1 release, so I would expect 3.14p, when it comes out,
to also be a gcc 2.8.1 release. They do hope to have the gcc 3.x (gnat 3.15p?)
release out within "weeks" though. Hopefully that'll be less than 20 of them.
:-)

However, it also appears that they are also hoping to merge the gnat sources
into the gcc baseline fairly soon. So theoreticly someone could download those
sources and try to put it together themselves earlier. I'm not sure how easy it
would be to get it to work though. I'd think there's probably a good reason why
it isn't using gcc 3 yet...

---
T.E.D.    homepage   - http://www.telepath.com/dennison/Ted/TED.html
          home email - mailto:dennison@telepath.com

Re: GCC 3.0 released

[Florian Weimer]

tmoran@acm.org writes:

>>3.14a1 (note the one).  I've completely missed this little extra digit.

>   Is there a 3.14p yet?

No, there isn't.

Re: GCC 3.0 released

[Ted Dennison]

In article <871yohih9w.fsf@deneb.enyo.de>, Florian Weimer says...
>
>Yes, that's true.  Shall we guess what is causing problems?  Legal
>matters (i.e. the copyright assignment to the FSF)?

That can take a while. I'm trying to go through the process with the SETI@Home
Service, and its been incredibly slow going. I wouldn't be suprised if the
SETI@Home project isn't over before it happens. I think the GNU project doesn't
have that many people to deal with this stuff. Perhaps if I go buy some GNU
T-shirts they'll get enough of a financial kick to get around to it. :-)

But I thought that the Gnat copyrights had been assigned since day 1. I don't
have the source distribution handy, but for the WinNT version I have, a cursory
check through the source files shows the following copyright holders:
Intermetrics (Win32 bindings, *not* GPLed)
Florida State University (GNARL stuff)
ACT (all the gnat.* packages, except gnat.ads)
FSF (everything else)

So it does look like most of the stuff in there is already FSF, and I'd guess
(just my guess) the rest isn't FSF *on purpose*, and will probably remain that
way.

Which begs the question (and this is just genuine curiosity), what exactly is
going into the official baseline when it gets merged? Will it just be the FSF
code? (probably not) Just the GPL'ed code? I guess we'll see when its merged.

---
T.E.D.    homepage   - http://www.telepath.com/dennison/Ted/TED.html
          home email - mailto:dennison@telepath.com

Re: GCC 3.0 released

[Florian Weimer]

Ted Dennison<dennison@telepath.com> writes:

> In article <871yohih9w.fsf@deneb.enyo.de>, Florian Weimer says...
>>
>>Yes, that's true.  Shall we guess what is causing problems?  Legal
>>matters (i.e. the copyright assignment to the FSF)?
> 
> That can take a while.

Robert Dewar told me via email that this is not the problem.  The
copyright was executed years ago, and apparently it is not necessary
to assign copyright for the components which are not directly part of
the compiler.  

> I'm trying to go through the process with the SETI@Home Service, and
> its been incredibly slow going.

Well, it happens quite fast if you've contributed some code to GNU
Emacs through some backdoor without signing any document. ;-)

OTOH, the copyright assignment stuff really slows down development in
some areas.  For example, at the moment, our university cannot donate
code to the FSF because of legal matters (the assignment contract is
completely incompatible with German law).  In fact, someone already
partly reimplemented a security fix for GNU Emacs because of this
problem.  As a result, we do not work on improving software (beyond
our immediate needs) any more unless contributing something does not
require any paperwork.  (Forking is not an option of course, because
of the additional work required.)

> So it does look like most of the stuff in there is already FSF, and
> I'd guess (just my guess) the rest isn't FSF *on purpose*, and will
> probably remain that way.

Yes, I think so.

> Which begs the question (and this is just genuine curiosity), what
> exactly is going into the official baseline when it gets merged?
> Will it just be the FSF code? (probably not) Just the GPL'ed code?

The latter is not an option, I think.  After all, you need quite a bit
of source code which is covered by the ARM copyright in order to be
able to compile typical Ada programs.

Re: GCC 3.0 released

[Ted Dennison]

In article <874rtcum4d.fsf@deneb.enyo.de>, Florian Weimer says...
>
>Ted Dennison<dennison@telepath.com> writes:
>> I'm trying to go through the process with the SETI@Home Service, and
>> its been incredibly slow going.
>
>Well, it happens quite fast if you've contributed some code to GNU
>Emacs through some backdoor without signing any document. ;-)

To be fair, the phase I'm stuck on isn't really the copyright assignment, its
getting blessed as a "GNU project". My first email took 2.3 months to get
answered (I'd forgotten that I'd even sent it). The answer asked for more info,
which I sent off about 20 days ago...

Not that I'm ticked or anything. They have quite limited resources, and I'd much
rather see what they do have spent on software development than on paper-pushing
staff.

>OTOH, the copyright assignment stuff really slows down development in
>some areas.  For example, at the moment, our university cannot donate
>code to the FSF because of legal matters (the assignment contract is
>completely incompatible with German law).  In fact, someone already

It looks like they need some German legal work. Yet another area where I'd
rather see them spend their limited resources than on processing my silly
request. 

---
T.E.D.    homepage   - http://www.telepath.com/dennison/Ted/TED.html
          home email - mailto:dennison@telepath.com

Re: GCC 3.0 released

[Florian Weimer]

Ted Dennison<dennison@telepath.com> writes:

> To be fair, the phase I'm stuck on isn't really the copyright
> assignment, its getting blessed as a "GNU project". My first email
> took 2.3 months to get answered (I'd forgotten that I'd even sent
> it). The answer asked for more info, which I sent off about 20 days
> ago...

Regarding the 'GNU' label, RMS sent me a few formal requirements
(Texinfo documentation, no references to proprietary software, and so
on) and told me to ask Robert Dewar for any other details.

The GNU Ada Database Environment just started to use the 'GNU' label,
without any confirmation...  Most GNU software projects do so, it
seems.

> Not that I'm ticked or anything. They have quite limited resources,
> and I'd much rather see what they do have spent on software
> development than on paper-pushing staff.

Well, this stuff is certainly important, too. Look at the IPFilter
confusion for an example of what can happen if things go wrong. With
FSF-copyrighted software, I'm confident that it's really free software
with a license situation which is not murky.

>>OTOH, the copyright assignment stuff really slows down development in
>>some areas.  For example, at the moment, our university cannot donate
>>code to the FSF because of legal matters (the assignment contract is
>>completely incompatible with German law).  In fact, someone already
> 
> It looks like they need some German legal work. Yet another area
> where I'd rather see them spend their limited resources than on
> processing my silly request.

From a certain point of view, our request is as silly as yours.  Quite
a few Germans have signed copyright assignments in the past, and now
somebody claims that German law explicitly forbids copyright
assignment!

Re: GCC 3.0 released

[Jacob Sparre Andersen]

Florian:

[ IANAL ]

> From a certain point of view, our request is as silly as yours.  Quite
> a few Germans have signed copyright assignments in the past, and now
> somebody claims that German law explicitly forbids copyright
> assignment!

Assuming that German copyright law is compatible with EU copyright
rules, this is likely to be partially true. When Europeans are
talking about copyright, they are generally talking about two
somewhat different concepts:

 * The author's right to have his name on his work (and to decide
   how it may be changed).
 * The author's right to economic compensation for copying of his
   work.

The former of the two can, as far as I understand EU copyright
rules never be transferred.

Jacob
-- 
"Filer er r�!"

Re: GCC 3.0 released

[Georg Bauhaus]

Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de> wrote:
: From a certain point of view, our request is as silly as yours.  Quite
: a few Germans have signed copyright assignments in the past, and now
: somebody claims that German law explicitly forbids copyright
: assignment!

recent news (german) regarding copyright (originator's rights):
http://www.bundesregierung.de/dokumente/Artikel/ix_42345_1529.htm
http://www.bmj.bund.de/ggv/urhebver.pdf

-- Georg
---
Microsoft Windows--a fresh perspective on information hiding

gcc 3.0 released

[Harris]

now that gcc 3.0 is released, I want to know if there are still plans
to incorporate gnat into gcc's source tree for 3.1?  Anybody know how
things stand as of now?

Re: gcc 3.0 released

[Ted Dennison]

In article <f03d3b89.0106180804.268682d9@posting.google.com>, Harris says...
>
>now that gcc 3.0 is released, I want to know if there are still plans
>to incorporate gnat into gcc's source tree for 3.1?  Anybody know how
>things stand as of now?

:-)
Not only did we both ask this same question simultaniously, but when I went to
check the gcc mailing list archives for info, the only message I found for today
was another Ada-gcc3 question. 

One would think there's a lot of pent-up-interest, or something. :-)

---
T.E.D.    homepage   - http://www.telepath.com/dennison/Ted/TED.html
          home email - mailto:dennison@telepath.com

Re: gcc 3.0 released

[Harris]

was there ever any doubt?  :-)


"Ted Dennison" <dennison@telepath.com> wrote in message
news:h7qX6.13163$pb1.480179@www.newsranger.com...
> In article <f03d3b89.0106180804.268682d9@posting.google.com>, Harris
says...
> >
> >now that gcc 3.0 is released, I want to know if there are still plans
> >to incorporate gnat into gcc's source tree for 3.1?  Anybody know how
> >things stand as of now?
>
> :-)
> Not only did we both ask this same question simultaniously, but when I
went to
> check the gcc mailing list archives for info, the only message I found for
today
> was another Ada-gcc3 question.
>
> One would think there's a lot of pent-up-interest, or something. :-)
>
> ---
> T.E.D.    homepage   - http://www.telepath.com/dennison/Ted/TED.html
>           home email - mailto:dennison@telepath.com

Re: gcc 3.0 released

[Robert Dewar]

hpk104@hotmail.com (Harris) wrote in message news:<f03d3b89.0106180804.268682d9@posting.google.com>...
> now that gcc 3.0 is released, I want to know if there are still plans
> to incorporate gnat into gcc's source tree for 3.1?  Anybody know how
> things stand as of now?

I would suggest that anyone interested in following this, follow the
appropriate gcc list. This thread has a lot of misinformation which
is too much trouble to correct. On the gcc list, you can find out what
the real situation is.