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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,5752ba976f4dad11 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) Subject: Re: GNAT 3.01 Source For OS/2 Date: 1996/04/24 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 151311432 references: organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-04-24T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: "jshafer1 said "I have been recently working with the source code for GNAT 3.03 on OS/2. I have found SEVERAL problems with this code. In fact I have Ada units that compiled on the older 3.01 compiler but will now not compile on he 3.03 compiler." 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. 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. 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 :-) 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.