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: 103376,16a35419d117fb15
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: rracine@draper.com (Roger Racine)
Subject: Re: discriminant
Date: 1999/07/13
Message-ID: <rracine.23.0007EE28@draper.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 500488926
Sender: nntp@news.draper.com (NNTP Master)
References: <3789bfc2.97977684@news.dsuper.net>
 <rracine.21.0008309A@draper.com> <378c1097.184220259@news.dsuper.net>
 <rracine.22.000F0325@draper.com> <378a9c0e.2792962@news.dsuper.net>
Organization: Draper Laboratory
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1999-07-13T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <378a9c0e.2792962@news.dsuper.net> fluffy_puff@dsuper.net writes:
>Is there a significant difference between GNAT and Aonix in the number
>of bugs they have ?  I recently dowloaded GNAT but haven't used it
>yet.  I noticed it's quite a bit smaller than the Aonix package, but
>still I would prefer less bugs and less features than the opposite.
>I've been told the Aonix debugger also does some funny things with
>pointers sometimes.

I have not used the Aonix product enough to give you a good comparison.  I am 
currently using GNAT on a project that requires inexpensive access to the 
source to the runtime routines.  Since GNAT is unique in this respect, no 
evaluation was done.

Sorry.

Roger Racine