Re: gcc 3.4.2 Ada

["Jeff C r e e.m" <jcreem@yahoo.com>]

"Craig Carey" <research@ijs.co.nz> wrote in message 
news:m6kfl0p8ph332c8sjss2es2p4s37qcjfif@4ax.com...
> On 26 Sep 2004 11:06:37 +0200, Pascal Obry <pascal@obry.org> wrote:
>
>>
>>Jeffrey Carter <spam@spam.com> writes:
>>
>
> AdaCore seems to be withholding changes to Gdb. The reasonong I got
> (from Mr Hilfinger of AdaCore) was incomplete or wrong or incorrect or
> hazy or wrong.
>
> Below are instructions on how to compile the CVS gdb in Cygwin.
>

stuff deleted

> The Cygwin Gcc 3.3.3 can be used:
>     ../src/configure --disable-tui --disable-shared --prefix=....
>     make all
>
> The result is not Ada aware.
>
> I conclude that AdaCore is keeping the Ada awareness feature out of
> Gdb.
>
> Not much of the new Gdb (Ada aware) source code is sent up to Redhat.
> The withholding is about maximal. The criterion for disclosure seems to
> be: upload if C programmers have to adapt eventually to some AdaCore
> change.
>
> When I built the Gdb of September 2004. it not understand that ".all"
> dereferences a pointer, and that major bug of Gvd 3.15 and Gdb bungling
> the interpretation of path names, is still not fixed (and I even sent in
> a bug report complaining that the last usable free Gvd+Gdb duo, was of
> version 3.14p).
>
> I don't know what reasoning is provided to AdaCore paying customers
> in Germany and USA.

Ok.. Let me start with the last one first....Huh?? Paying customers do get 
an Ada aware gdb.
I am not sure how any of what you posted relates to paying customers that 
get GNAT versions
and gdb versions that work together. Paying customers do not current pay for 
cygwin based distributions (at least not
in large numbers since it is not even listed as a supported target).

As for "sending source code to redhat"...If you follow the gdb mailing lists 
(and gcc mailing lists for that matter)
you would see that there are (and have been) efforts underway to for a long 
time to fold in patches. GCC patches are
certainly moving ahead better than GDB. There is a publically available gdb 
CVS archive at http://libre.act-europe.fr/GDB/

Would it be better if all of this was always up to date within the main 
public trees? Sure. But it takes a lot of effort to do that.
Things have certainly gotten a lot better in the GCC tree (and this does at 
times cause some on the GCC developers list to
complain about the fact that ACT contributes source code in the way that 
they do).