Re: GNAT and GCC 3.0

[Ted Dennison<dennison@telepath.com>]

In article <5ee5b646.0112052127.421f6d4@posting.google.com>, Robert Dewar
says...
>
>Ronald Cole <ronald@forte-intl.com> wrote in message news:<m3ofldb58t.fsf@yakisoba.forte-intl.com>...
>> If you don't think it's a threat, then how about volunteering to
>> provide me with wavefront sources?  I'm interested in comparing them
>> against what's currently in the gcc cvs tree.
>
>
>The only difference between the wavefront sources and
>what is in the gcc cvs tree is that the latter is modified
>to be compatible with GCC 3, while as our qualified
>wavefronts are still GCC 2.8.1 based. Well that's not
..
>days behind in keeping the trees synchronized. It can also
>be the case that patches submitted to the gcc tree have not
>been back syncrhonized into the act tree, but in general
>the difference is not more than a few days.

I originally had the same issue with the "wavefronts" that Ron had. However, now
that the official repository is the public gcc cvs tree, my level of caring
about ACT wavefronts has dropped to near zero. If someone wants an interim
version of Gnat, then the public gcc cvs tree is the place to go for it.
Internal ACT versions are just that: internal. I wouldn't want one now if it
were offered to me.

---
T.E.D.    homepage   - http://www.telepath.com/dennison/Ted/TED.html

No trees were killed in the sending of this message. 
However a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.