Re: GNAT 3.01 Source For OS/2

[jschafer1@iquest.net]

Mr. Dewar,

   No YOU miss the point COMPLETELY.  There ARE extreemly basic
problems in the 3.03 code.  You have cases of functions that
return natural values and then your code attempts to return a -1
value.  It will die with a constraint error on ANY Ada compiler
unless you turn off range checking.

   Now since we are talking about the 3.03 source AND executables
on cs.nyu.edu.  I am saying that those executable did NOT come
from that source.  Saying that here is a 3.03 executable implies
if came from the 3.03 source !!!!  There is only 3 possiblities
here:

   1. Those executables DON'T work.  They pull the constraint error
        that WILL happen if the 3.03 source was used.

   2. Those executables DO work.  You patched the code and didn't
        release the changed code.

   3. Those executable Do work.  You compiled the compiler with
        range checks suppressed.

   But it's worse than that.  Once you get the compiler built and able
to compile code (by fixing the previous bug), you find out that it
cannot even compile it's own libraries.

   This time it turns out to be a problem of handling derived abstract
types.  Here some ideot decided that if the parent of the derived does
not have a discriminant constraint, there is no need to initialize the
discriminant constraint list on the derived type.  Needless to say this
leads to another constraint_error.

   The screwed up thing about this one is that the exact same unit (in
the Gnat library) compiles fine on the 3.01 compiler.  Somebody added
the "Present" check in 3.03 and made the compiler fail.  If this bug
was not fixed in 3.03 executables on cs.nyu.edu, you didn't compile 
the libraries with those programs.  This ain't some abstract problem.
3.03 can't even compile it's OWN LIBRARY.  This is pretty poor to say
the least.

   However it get's worse.  Some other ideot decided to have the 3.03
code generate subtype declarations for selected components of
unconstrained descriminated records.  It appears to have something to
do with getting an actual subtype instead of the nominal subtype.  The
problem with this braindead move is that it causes 3.03 to use FIVE TIMES
more memory for some units.

   The thing that is irritating is that simply replacing a call to
Get_Actual_Subtype in Analyze_Selected_Component with the code from the
same place in the 2.04 source fixes the problem and the compiler then
works fine.

   Now to address your reply to my Posting:

dewar.830403010@schonberg>, dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) writes:
>
>Sounds like you probably did not manage to build 3.03 correctly. That's
>not surprising, it is tricky to do right. Certainly we have not experienced
>the kind of symptoms you report (with either the OS/2 or other versions
>of 3.03 and later development versions). Most likely they are artifacts
>of an incorrect build. The best thing if you can would be to try out your
>program on some other build of 3.03 and see if the problems persist. If
>so, by all means report them to report@gnat.com.
>

    BULLSHIT.  The compiler is simple to compile.  If you think it's 
difficult to get 3.03 built you haven't worked on any large projects
before.  It took less than a day to get setup to compile GNAT it then
took 2 weeks to debug problems in YOUR code.

   It's not my job to go out and find bugs for YOU.  Ada Core Technology
simply screwed up 3.03.  Your 3.03 source on cs.nyu.edu WILL NOT WORK.
If you want me to go as far as specifing the exact lines of code that
are wrong I can do that !!!!  Do you REALLY want me to PROVE to the 
open public that your 3.03 release is broken and CANNOT work ????

   When I do that, the clear implication will be that ACT is NOT providing
the Configuration Management and Version Control that one would expect from
ANY Ada developer.  I will be proving that the 3.03 source and executable on
cs.nyu.edu DO NOT match.

   Insulting my intelligence by claiming that I built the compiler wrong
is only asking for trouble.  I am bring up the question of how appropriate
it is for a company that sells a validated ADA compiler on a limited
number of platforms to be the maintainer of GNU software on a large number
of platforms.

   I find it strange that the 3.03 compiler doesn't even work as good as
the 3.01 compiler.  I also find it strange that 3.03 requires a great deal
more memory than the 3.01 compiler.  Sounds like the quality of the freeware
version is going downhill.

>
>We are hoping to get 3.04 out very soon, and as soon as it is out for
>the major supported targets, then we will try to get an OS/2 version
>out as soon as possible thereafter.
>

    Yea I have heard this for a long time now.  I notice the "Try" in
the sentence about getting an OS/2 version out.  You said you would be
having releases for other platforms in the near future in the README file
on cs.nyu.edu.  But it's been 52 days now and you are talking about another
version.  You didn't even finish the job for 3.03.

    Are you ever going to start producing diff files to show us the 
difference between each version of your code.  MIT does this with GCC,
Is there some reason ACT can't even live up to MIT's standards ???

    Look, the WHOLE REASON for the original posting was to get 3.01 source
so I could pin down what changes you made to 3.01 to turn it into 3.03.  I
was tring to get ACT's buggy code to work.  But for some reason, after ACT
took over GNAT older versions of executables and source where removed from
the cs.nyu.edu immediately after the 3.03 code was there.  Is ACT just to
cheep to pay for the disk or is there some OTHER reason we can't get the
older versions of source anymore.  

   In fact to fix your memory problem I had to go to a CD-ROM in Belgium and
get a copy of 2.04 source.  Then I was able to get your compiler to work by 
removing code that was added somewhere between 3.01 and 3.03.

   So once AGAIN. Directed directly are you Mr Dewar,  WHERE can I get a copy
of 3.01 source so I can find the set of changes YOUR company made to the GNAT
source ??????   Or is there something you are tring to hide ??????

>
>As I have explained before, the (actually rather surprising) lack of
>interest in the OS/2 version from our customer base means that new OS/2
>versions are not at the top of our priority list. There will be a new
>version soon, because I am using it (as I said beore, if I ever decide
>to switch from OS/2, that will be unfortunate :-)
>

   So I am suppost to be impressed by the fact you use OS/2 ????  SO WHAT.
I do too.  So do a lot of people.  You sound like you are running a business.
Big deal.  Running a business and maintaining freeware code are two totally
incompatable things my friend.  My biggest complaint is about the dis-service
the Ada community is getting with ACT maintaining GNAT.

>
>It is certainly possible to find programs that will compile on 3.01, and
>not on 3.03. We have a few reports of such regressions, and all have been
>fixed at this stage, although undoubtedly there are some we have not
>run into yet. Our testing process, which I described recently, minimizes,
>but does not eliminate all possibilities of regressions.
>

   If your quality controls result in 3 count 'em 3 show stopper bugs
introduced by moving from 3.01 to 3.03, I guess we should feel LUCKY
that 3.03 only introduced 3 bugs.  I'm just saying the quality of your
quality controls are extreemly lacking.

   And the "certainly possible to find program" line of your reply is
laughable.  Try looking at your own libraries for GNAT !!!!  Or is it
that you have been working with a patched version of 3.03 since you 
released the 3.03 source and haven't been kind enough to release the 
patched version to the rest of the Ada world ????

Joe Schafer 
jschafer@iquest.net

P.S. Just so you are INFORMED, I now have a functioning 3.03 compiler on OS/2.
     It is built on Emx 09b and so far has passed all my testing.  If people
     begin to ask for it, I WILL be giving it to them along with EXACT
     specifications of how ACT screwed up.  Or did you not notice the off
     hand comment about ACT getting it's ACT together in my first posting ???

     Once you get the 3.04 source out, I will compile it to get an OS/2 copy
     I could care less if ACT maintains the OS/2 version of GNAT.  But if I
     have to hassle with your 3.04 code like your 3.03 code, The whole Ada
     community is going to hear about it !!!!  As you MIGHT have guessed, I
     am not really happy with ACT at the momment.  I SURELY would NOT buy
     any of your products !!!!  Big Big quality control issues are not resolved.