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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,LOTS_OF_MONEY autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,923a044bad102ebc X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-05-18 16:22:09 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed1.cidera.com!Cidera!cyclone.nyroc.rr.com!chnws02.ne.ipsvc.net!cyclone.ne.ipsvc.net!24.128.8.70!typhoon.ne.ipsvc.net.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Jeffrey Creem" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada References: <3ce3a7de.6340210@news.essex.ac.uk> <5ee5b646.0205161408.47a7f726@posting.google.com> <5ee5b646.0205181220.66cba6c2@posting.google.com> Subject: Re: GCC 3.1 released X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 18 May 2002 23:07:50 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.31.5.146 X-Complaints-To: abuse@attbi.com X-Trace: typhoon.ne.ipsvc.net 1021763270 66.31.5.146 (Sat, 18 May 2002 19:07:50 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 18 May 2002 19:07:50 EDT Organization: ATT Broadband Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:24360 Date: 2002-05-18T23:07:50+00:00 List-Id: "Robert Dewar" wrote in message news:5ee5b646.0205181220.66cba6c2@posting.google.com... > "Jeffrey Creem" wrote in message news:... > > > Yup..There are problems.. There are also problems in GNAT > > 3.14, 3.13, 3.12, 3.15 ... etc. > > But none of these releases failed ACATS tests and tests in > our test suite. GNAT 5 has significant numbers of failures > in all categories on all targets. Several of these are > of the form of incorrect code being generated silently > and resulting in wrong results. I am not saying that the And of course I am not going to argue with Robert about the quality of any particular GNAT release since that would be somewhat silly. But... The fact that past public releases pass all ACATS tests and 3.1 fails some and can produce incorrect code is somewhat bad however I strongly suspect that at some point in their life cycles each of those public releases produced incorrect code on some customers code somewhere. Passing ACATS does give me a warm fuzzy but regression testing any new compiler release on my own code base is the only thing that really convinces me of the quality of any given compiler for my own use. Still, I would not suggest that people use 3.1 for some important project with a real customer but then again I don't think it is really a great idea to use any of the other versions (of any complicated product) for that purpose without support either. Disclaimer : Of course I have never had the opportunity of actually using an ACT released compiler on any project.... I have however used plenty of support compilers that have passed various conformance suites and still been "broken". P.S. I am sure I said something above that conflicts with my first statement about not arguing with Robert about GNAT... I am glad I just said it was a silly idea and not a stupid one :)