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: 103376,391464232b8157e2
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Simon Wright <simon@pogner.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: GNAT and GCC compatability.
Date: 1999/09/29
Message-ID: <x7vr9jii9jm.fsf@pogner.moho>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 530837386
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: pogner.demon.co.uk:158.152.70.98
References: <gR3I3.185$hs.12299@monger.newsread.com>
 <m3ogenkthv.fsf@kiuk0156.chembio.ntnu.no>
 <87n1u6khco.fsf@deneb.cygnus.argh.org>
X-Trace: news.demon.co.uk 938634914 nnrp-09:15953 NO-IDENT
 pogner.demon.co.uk:158.152.70.98
Organization: At Home
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net
Date: 1999-09-29T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.cygnus.argh.org> writes:

> Note that you shouldn't build the C++ compiler from a GNAT-patched
> source tree, because some portions of the GCC backend are also changed
> and the resulting C++ compiler, which would include these changes as
> well, hasn't been tested.

The (admittedly minimal) C++ code I've built with such a beast has
given me no problems.

Just one (rather vague) datum, of course!