From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: GNAT 3.07 v. GNAT 3.09
Date: 1997/04/01
Date: 1997-04-01T00:00:00+00:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <dewar.859944995@merv> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 5hs1t2$ehl@hermes.acs.unt.edu
<<Being new to Ada, I downloaded the GNAT 3.09 binaries for Linux and tried
to compile TASH 7.6. On almost every body file, the compiler exited with
a message regarding an internal bug in GNAT. However, it did compile
everything in its distribution (dining philosophers, etc.). I then
download GNAT 3.07 and TASH 7.6 compiled clean. Is 3.07 generally more
stable than 3.09 or is this problem caused be something else?>>
3.09 is generally much MORE stable than 3.07 (and fixes a lot of problems
as well as providing lots of new functionality). The kind of discrepancy
you mention might be a real bug that happens to show up in 3.09, or it
might be a result of misinstalling 3.09, or it might just be something
else odd ... it is impossible to say without more details. As always,
if you get an internal bug in GNAT, if you want the GNAT team to look
at the problem, send a mail message to report@gnat.com, being careful
to format the bug report into the form described in gnatinfo.txt.
--
Robert Dewar
Ada Core Technologies
next prev parent reply other threads:[~1997-04-01 0:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
1997-04-01 0:00 GNAT 3.07 v. GNAT 3.09 David Curry
1997-04-01 0:00 ` Robert Dewar [this message]
1997-04-08 0:00 ` TASH 7.6 v. GNAT 3.09 (was GNAT 3.07 v. GNAT 3.09) Ronald K. House
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox