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

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

On 23/12/2009 23:44, in article
eeaf5cb6-a582-4c90-a494-bd17142600a8@v25g2000yqk.googlegroups.com, "sjw"
<simon.j.wright@mac.com> wrote:

> On Dec 23, 5:18�pm, "(see below)" <yaldni...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 23/12/2009 14:26, in article
>> 68e6e09a-9f02-4fd4-a87c-d1c43dd10...@27g2000yqr.googlegroups.com, "sjw"
>> <simon.j.wri...@mac.com> wrote:
>>> On Dec 23, 3:29�am, "(see below)" <yaldni...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> [...]
>>>> 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?
> 
> Several! though I'd be surprised if any of them got invoked. Will
> check further.

What I had in mind was interference between libraries, etc.

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