Re: GNAT 3.01 Source For OS/2

[dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)]

"   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 ????
"

Well that makes it clear that something is very strange with what you
are doing. Of course all 3.03 releases are built with the 3.03 sources,
and of course they all compile their own libraries. Probably you are
just building in what for us is a non-standard way (for example it
is possible that you use different switches -- your example with the
Natural and -1 is clearly such an example, since the library is designe
to be compiled with checks off. Of course this is a (minor, not affecting
functionality) bug, which should be fixed. If you want to send us details,
we will be happy to look at it.

Regardng the actual subtypes, you are treadng in a very difficult area of
the compiler. IN general the additional actual subtypes are ESSENTIAL to
fix a number of critical bugs -- so your changes will cause a lot of
serious regressions. It is true that certain programs can generate
more code as a result. For us more code is less of a problem than wrong
code! In fact in 3.04, we have largely, but not completely eliminated
this impact, while retaining the proper functionality, which was not
easy to do.

It is certainly true that there were some regressions with 3.03. We know
of no way to guarantee that there will be no regressions, but we had
very few reproted, and for most people, the large number of bug fixes
and extra functoinality from 3.01 to 3.03 was desirable!

I think you would do better to report the bugs you find in a calm and
collected manner, rather than flail around trying to fix them yourself
when you don't fully understand the semantic implications of what you
are doing. The "ideots" [sic] at ACT might just possibly understand
some of the issues better than you do!

Regarding difs, we could certainly do this. They are large, probably
3.02 to 3.03 would be 10,000 lines of difs, many of them coming simply
from reformatting, comment changes etc. as well as technical changes.

You actually seem to understand a lot about the tehnology of GNAT. TOo
bad you can't operate in a more constructive mode, like many of the
other volunteers who help improve the technology. In particular, it
really would be helpful to have detailed bug reports, rather than
vague complaints. If you think you have a fix, by all means send it
along to us. Many people send us proposed fixes. Often they are not
quite right, but they are very helpful in pointing to the right fix.
Sometimes they are indeed right. The difficulty is that many things
interact subtly. Especially if you are not thoroughly familiar with
GNAT, and with Ada 95 semantics, then what seems like a simple fix
can in fact turn out to have subtle interactoins, as is the case with
the actual subtype stuff.

By the way, ACT always provies full source releases with binary releases.
We do not provide FTP access direct to ACT for other than our customers,
but the releases are on many public FTP sites, and they are certainly
free to keep old sources around. It certainly seems like it would be a good
idea if one of these sites would keep old sources around. Disk space is
not infinite at NYU, so this is probably not the best choice, but it is
hard to believe that some of the other sites that keep copies of GNAT
around do not have the disk space to keep old copies of the sources.