Re: GNAT GPL 2009 for Mac OS X (Snow Leopard)

["(see below)" <yaldnif.w@blueyonder.co.uk>]

On 23/12/2009 14:26, in article
68e6e09a-9f02-4fd4-a87c-d1c43dd104e1@27g2000yqr.googlegroups.com, "sjw"
<simon.j.wright@mac.com> wrote:

> On Dec 23, 3:29�am, "(see below)" <yaldni...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 22/12/2009 23:37, in article
>> 96854a61-2032-49b1-a8b2-8a5aee181...@22g2000yqr.googlegroups.com, "sjw"
>> 
>> <simon.j.wri...@mac.com> wrote:
>>> Have just uploaded gnat-gpl-2009-i386-apple-darwin10.2.0-1.tar.bz2,
>>> without the dependency; will remove the offending files after a day or
>>> two.
>> 
>> Unfortunately, it goes very badly wrong at -O1 optimization level on another
>> example:
... 
>> thus:
>> 
>> +===========================GNAT BUG DETECTED==============================+
>> | GPL 2009 (20090519) (i386-apple-darwin10.2.0) GCC error: � � � � � � � � |
>> | in gnat_to_gnu_entity, at ada/gcc-interface/decl.c:312 � � � � � � � � � |
>> | Error detected at test.adb:14:7 � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �|
>> ...
>> 
>> This error message does not appear at -O3, but the generated object program
>> is non-functional, although that may be for a different reason, of course.
>> 
>> This code compiled and ran correctly under the Leopard compilers I was using
>> until I stupidly installed SL.
>> 
>> What on earth has happened for GNAT to regress so badly in the face of what
>> is often described as a tidying-up and performance release of OS X?
> 
> I don't know either, because here it compiles without complaint at -O
> {0,1,2,3}!

Hmm. Interesting ...
What could account for the difference?
Do you have any other versions of GNAT installed in that testing
environment?

-- 
Bill Findlay
<surname><forename> chez blueyonder.co.uk