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,b5a423f2d50e9a6
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: David Gressett <gressett@iglobal.net>
Subject: Re: Where is the Ada for LINUX Team site?
Date: 2000/11/20
Message-ID: <9t5j1ts2m031nfi5g9lkj1837ttv6lhvm9@4ax.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 695911938
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <8v9klo$rgl$1@neptunium.btinternet.com>
 <8v9vgk$v8j$06$1@news.t-online.com> <8va26k$bqb$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com
Date: 2000-11-20T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Mon, 20 Nov 2000 02:27:36 GMT, Robert Dewar
<robert_dewar@my-deja.com> wrote:

--- snip ---
>  1) There were some technical problems with shared libraries.
>  The ALT folks felt that they were not severe enough, and
>  decided that shared libraries were valuable enough not to
>  worry too much about the problems.
>
>  2) Precise Ada compliance requires the provision of the
>  alternative FSU threads package, since Linux threads are
>  not Annex D compliant. The ALT folks decided that for
>  simple use, that did not matter.
>
>THe current status is that problem 1) has now been solved in
>the latest GNAT technology, but problem 2) remains.
>
What exactly is problem 1)?

Is problem 1)  fixable in 3.13p, or do we need to wait
for 3.14p?

For problem 2), how simple is simple?, i.e., what kind of stuff breaks
when run with Linux threads?


>I think here at ACT we quite understand decision 2) above, and
>it seems just fine to provide these RPM's with limited
>capability for the purposes for which they were being provided,
>but I explained to Richard that we need at ACT to be
>distributing a fully compliant version.
>
>We will study the issues of providing RPM's with both
>threads packages, and we think it can probably be done for
>the next release of GNAT now that problem 1) is solved (problem
>1 was a show stopper at previous points for ACT provision of
>RPM's).
--- snip ---