Re: gcc 3.4.2 Ada

[Craig Carey <research@ijs.co.nz>]

What is the story with Gdb 6 having an awareness of other languages?.

On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 11:23:27 GMT, "Jeff C r e e.m" wrote:
>
>"Craig Carey" wrote in message 
>> On 26 Sep 2004 11:06:37 +0200, Pascal Obry wrote:
>>>Jeffrey Carter <spam@spam.com> writes:
...
>Ok.. Let me start with the last one first....Huh?? Paying customers do get 
>an Ada aware gdb.

Some argument about paying customers might be more believable.

I write here to just note that the reasoning I got for why Gdb 6 is not
 Ada awware, did not seem to be reasoning or adequate; so in the
 circumstances, guessing the best possible plausible explanation could
 produce wrong information on why Gdb has not been getting Ada aware
 patches.

...
>As for "sending source code to redhat"...If you follow the gdb mailing lists 
>(and gcc mailing lists for that matter)
>you would see that there are (and have been) efforts underway to for a long 
>time to fold in patches. GCC patches are
>certainly moving ahead better than GDB. There is a publically available gdb 
>CVS archive at http://libre.act-europe.fr/GDB/

I was myself reading the Gdb mailing list, and I tried to integrate the
 patches of Mr HJilfinger of AdaCore this month. They were already
 integrated. Also the patches are minor: most of the Ada stuff is
 withheld. The end result is not Ada aware. 

The reasoning I got from Mr Hilfinger was not designed to withstand
 questioniong:
    the names of people inside of AdaCore (and/or Redhat/Debua ?) got
    censored out. Those people complain that the Ada awareness is
   faulty. 

I want to know if the person creating the argument, is inside of the
 argument. If it is Redhat who oppose an early release of an Ada aware
 Gdb, then Mr Hilfinger or other members of AdaCore, ought not protect
 RedHat with anonymity for the corporation.

>
>Would it be better if all of this was always up to date within the main 
>public trees? Sure. But it takes a lot of effort to do that.
...

I guess that any claim of "a lot of effort" is wrong. 

In the last month: I believe I got an anonymity defence: the testers
can't speed things up. No views of AdaCore managers were stated.
No public relations chat from AdaCore: just sudden total failure for
comp.lang.ada and the persons inside of the argument are kept anonymous
(cg. pilots of UFOs).



Craig Carey
http://www.