* Ada compiler for PC? @ 1999-04-17 0:00 Michael Feher 1999-04-17 0:00 ` Steven Hovater ` (3 more replies) 0 siblings, 4 replies; 78+ messages in thread From: Michael Feher @ 1999-04-17 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Hello - I know this is probably in a FAQ somewhere but here it goes... I am curious if there is a latest version of an Ada compiler anywhere for download, but I more interested in it being for a Win98 platform rather than the for-free aspect of it. If anyone has any information for me, please respond to this newsgroup or e-mail me. Thanks in advance - Mike ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada compiler for PC? 1999-04-17 0:00 Ada compiler for PC? Michael Feher @ 1999-04-17 0:00 ` Steven Hovater 1999-04-17 0:00 ` Tom Moran ` (2 subsequent siblings) 3 siblings, 0 replies; 78+ messages in thread From: Steven Hovater @ 1999-04-17 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Rational's ApexNT product is pretty kick-a**, I would add. Cheers, Steve Michael Feher wrote: > Hello - > I know this is probably in a FAQ somewhere but here it goes... > > I am curious if there is a latest version of an Ada compiler > anywhere for download, but I more interested in it being for a Win98 > platform rather than the for-free aspect of it. If anyone has > any information for me, please respond to this newsgroup or > e-mail me. > > Thanks in advance - > Mike -- Steven Hovater svh@rational.com Software Engineering Consultant Phone/fax:781-676-2565/2500 Rational Software Pager: 888-906-2209 83 Hartwell Ave, Lexington, MA Amateur radio: AA1YH ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada compiler for PC? 1999-04-17 0:00 Ada compiler for PC? Michael Feher 1999-04-17 0:00 ` Steven Hovater @ 1999-04-17 0:00 ` Tom Moran 1999-04-18 0:00 ` Tom Moran 1999-04-20 0:00 ` Larry Kilgallen 1999-04-18 0:00 ` Ada compiler for PC? Wilhelm Spickermann [not found] ` <7fua23$fgh$1@nnrp1 <37234dca.a <1999Apr25.201259.1@eisner> 3 siblings, 2 replies; 78+ messages in thread From: Tom Moran @ 1999-04-17 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) >I am curious if there is a latest version of an Ada compiler >anywhere for download, but I more interested in it being for a Win98 >platform rather than the for-free aspect of it. Several companies (www.aonix.com, www.gnat.com, www.rrsoftware.com and, I think, Greenhils, DDC, and Idaho Engineering Labs) offer Window Ada compilers If you want one for the price of a download (but obviously without free support) look at Aonix (size limits on the downloadable compiler) or Gnat. If "latest version" means in-house in alpha testing, you won't find it. The latest version that's publicly available for download is the version that's publicly available for download. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada compiler for PC? 1999-04-17 0:00 ` Tom Moran @ 1999-04-18 0:00 ` Tom Moran 1999-04-20 0:00 ` Larry Kilgallen 1 sibling, 0 replies; 78+ messages in thread From: Tom Moran @ 1999-04-18 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) >Several companies ... offer Windows Ada compilers Egad, I left off Rational (www.rational.com) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada compiler for PC? 1999-04-17 0:00 ` Tom Moran 1999-04-18 0:00 ` Tom Moran @ 1999-04-20 0:00 ` Larry Kilgallen 1999-04-20 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1 sibling, 1 reply; 78+ messages in thread From: Larry Kilgallen @ 1999-04-20 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <3718d384.254178@news.pacbell.net>, tmoran@bix.com (Tom Moran) writes: >>I am curious if there is a latest version of an Ada compiler >>anywhere for download, but I more interested in it being for a Win98 >>platform rather than the for-free aspect of it. > Several companies (www.aonix.com, www.gnat.com, www.rrsoftware.com > and, I think, Greenhils, DDC, and Idaho Engineering Labs) offer Window > Ada compilers If you want one for the price of a download (but > obviously without free support) look at Aonix (size limits on the > downloadable compiler) or Gnat. > If "latest version" means in-house in alpha testing, you won't find > it. The latest version that's publicly available for download is the > version that's publicly available for download. On the other hand, I think it possible that "latest" meant "conforming to the most recent Ada standard". Since that standard was completed in 1995, it is the one addressed by all of those compilers. Larry Kilgallen ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada compiler for PC? 1999-04-20 0:00 ` Larry Kilgallen @ 1999-04-20 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-04-20 0:00 ` Tom Moran 1999-04-20 0:00 ` GNAT versions ( was :Ada compiler for PC?) SpamSpamSpam 0 siblings, 2 replies; 78+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 1999-04-20 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <1999Apr20.073527.1@eisner>, Kilgallen@eisner.decus.org.nospam wrote: > On the other hand, I think it possible that "latest" > meant "conforming to the most recent Ada standard". > Since that standard was completed > in 1995, it is the one addressed by all of those > compilers. Indeed! I found Tom's reply very odd. When someone asks for the latest version of PowerPoint, they are not asking for the development version that some team in Redmond is using to test out their latest additions and fixes ... For the record, The latest public version of GNAT is 3.11p The latest version of GNAT Professional is 3.11b2 We are testing version 3.12 technology, and early beta versions are being tested by selected customers. We are hoping that the 3.12a GNAT Professional release will be ready for beta testing within a couple of weeks. If this testing goes smoothly, then a final release of GNAT Professional 3.12 will follow, followed by a release of public version 3.12p. Robert Dewar -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada compiler for PC? 1999-04-20 0:00 ` Robert Dewar @ 1999-04-20 0:00 ` Tom Moran 1999-04-20 0:00 ` GNAT versions ( was :Ada compiler for PC?) SpamSpamSpam 1 sibling, 0 replies; 78+ messages in thread From: Tom Moran @ 1999-04-20 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) >When someone asks >for the latest version of PowerPoint, they are not asking >for the development version that some team in Redmond is >using to test out their latest additions and fixes But the original asked: > if there is a latest version of an Ada compiler >anywhere for download Of the finite set of versions available for download , one is necessarily the latest of that set. Presumably the Redmond development version of PowerPoint, while later than any other, is not in the set of available versions. If it is, then it's probably the latest in that set. Similarly with Gnat - the daily development version is not available for (public) download so it is not a member of the set of "available for download" versions and thus is not the latest member of that set. Last time I looked, 3.11p was both "available" and "the latest available", for download. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* GNAT versions ( was :Ada compiler for PC?) 1999-04-20 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-04-20 0:00 ` Tom Moran @ 1999-04-20 0:00 ` SpamSpamSpam 1999-04-21 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1 sibling, 1 reply; 78+ messages in thread From: SpamSpamSpam @ 1999-04-20 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) > When someone asks > for the latest version of PowerPoint, they are not asking > for the development version that some team in Redmond is > using to test out their latest additions and fixes ... Yes indeed, but then Power Point isn't GPL software .... Glen. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* Re: GNAT versions ( was :Ada compiler for PC?) 1999-04-20 0:00 ` GNAT versions ( was :Ada compiler for PC?) SpamSpamSpam @ 1999-04-21 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-04-21 0:00 ` Glen 0 siblings, 1 reply; 78+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 1999-04-21 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <371C99DD.F15ADC4B@spam.com>, SpamSpamSpam <spam@spam.com> wrote: > > When someone asks > > for the latest version of PowerPoint, they are not > > asking > > for the development version that some team in Redmond > > is using to test out their latest additions and fixes ... > > Yes indeed, but then Power Point isn't GPL software .... So what? Why should the license under which sotware is distributed affect anything with respect to proper quality control ... or are you under the illusion that if I decide to use the GPL as a license it forces me to distribute untested stuff? If so, this is a misprehension. The GPL is a license for limited use of software, certainly more generous than the corresponding license for limited use used by Microsoft, but again, so what? -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* Re: GNAT versions ( was :Ada compiler for PC?) 1999-04-21 0:00 ` Robert Dewar @ 1999-04-21 0:00 ` Glen 1999-04-21 0:00 ` Larry Kilgallen 1999-04-21 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 0 siblings, 2 replies; 78+ messages in thread From: Glen @ 1999-04-21 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Robert Dewar wrote: > In article <371C99DD.F15ADC4B@spam.com>, > SpamSpamSpam <spam@spam.com> wrote: > > > When someone asks > > > for the latest version of PowerPoint, they are not > > > asking > > > for the development version that some team in Redmond > > > is using to test out their latest additions and fixes > ... > > > > Yes indeed, but then Power Point isn't GPL software .... > > So what? Why should the license under which sotware is > distributed affect anything with respect to proper quality > control ... And just what affect does releasing "Betas" to the public haveon ACTs quality control ? does your source code suddenly become degraded or "infected" by the efforts of others ? Are your paying customers so stupid as to take copies from unoffical sources ? No. And what about non-beta "professional" versions of GPL software which are distributed to customers long before the glitch free version of the "public" release appears? how does restricting their distribution affect quality ? And just how long where glib2 public users kept waiting for the "public" release of a GPL work available to paying support customers ? glitch free ? > or are you under the illusion that if I decide > to use the GPL as a license it forces me to distribute > untested stuff? You didn't decide to use the GPL, the code came with the GPL, anyadditions you made (and chose to release) HAD to be GPL. > If so, this is a misprehension. No, its your misrepresentation, just a spin todivert from the fact that ACT cannot release a non GPL GNAT. > The GPL > is a license for limited use of software, How does it limit my use, except for trying to make it proprietary ? > certainly more > generous than the corresponding license for limited use > used by Microsoft, but again, so what? Microsoft prohibit me asking a fellow for a copy of the latest version of power point, the GPL allows anyone the right to give me or anyone else the latest version. This "not till its glitch free" is crap, you restrict a GPL work and all that might be learnt from such betas and an open testing, bug reporting, knowledge base, to protect your only asset, which isn't the compiler because you don't own it ( please don't talk about the version you keep under your bed at ACT, which okay you do own ) its the knowledge. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* Re: GNAT versions ( was :Ada compiler for PC?) 1999-04-21 0:00 ` Glen @ 1999-04-21 0:00 ` Larry Kilgallen 1999-04-21 0:00 ` root 1999-04-21 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1 sibling, 1 reply; 78+ messages in thread From: Larry Kilgallen @ 1999-04-21 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <371DF7CE.C7D7C1F@spam.com>, Glen <spam@spam.com> writes: > Robert Dewar wrote: > >> In article <371C99DD.F15ADC4B@spam.com>, >> SpamSpamSpam <spam@spam.com> wrote: >> > > When someone asks >> > > for the latest version of PowerPoint, they are not >> > > asking >> > > for the development version that some team in Redmond >> > > is using to test out their latest additions and fixes >> ... >> > >> > Yes indeed, but then Power Point isn't GPL software .... >> >> So what? Why should the license under which sotware is >> distributed affect anything with respect to proper quality >> control ... > > And just what affect does releasing "Betas" to the public haveon ACTs > quality control ? Presumably it would increase the number of posts on this issue in comp.lang.ada, although that seems hard to believe. Please take these endless disputes (as distinguished from inquiries) to a software licensing forum and keep them out of comp.lang.ada. Larry Kilgallen ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* Re: GNAT versions ( was :Ada compiler for PC?) 1999-04-21 0:00 ` Larry Kilgallen @ 1999-04-21 0:00 ` root 1999-04-22 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-04-22 0:00 ` dennison 0 siblings, 2 replies; 78+ messages in thread From: root @ 1999-04-21 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Larry Kilgallen wrote: > Please take these endless disputes (as distinguished from inquiries) > to a software licensing forum and keep them out of comp.lang.ada. > Note that I did cross posted to gnu.misc.discuss, so if anyone there is to follow up please keep it in g.m.d. I do sense that I am the ONLY C.L.A reader who disagrees with ACT policy of GPL versioning and release, so I shall cease in picking up when Robert posts regards this subject ( even when he offers www.opensource.com instead of www.gnu.org for a definition of "free software". ) Glen. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* Re: GNAT versions ( was :Ada compiler for PC?) 1999-04-21 0:00 ` root @ 1999-04-22 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-04-22 0:00 ` Glen 1999-04-22 0:00 ` dennison 1 sibling, 1 reply; 78+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 1999-04-22 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <371E2F2A.662C8F4F@spam.com>, root <roffey@shagbadger.demon.co.uk> wrote: > Robert posts regards this subject ( even when he offers > www.opensource.com instead of www.gnu.org for a > definition of "free software". ) Please note that opensource is an appropriate source of information on open source software, NOT on free software. I have not ever suggested finding out about free software from open source software. This is perhaps a good opportunity to point out the distinction. The emphasis in the open source community is on quality achieved by making sources openly available. The emphasis in free software is on providing freedom to the user of the software. They are not the same thing, although there is some overlap. The GPL for instance qualifies software as being open source. However, the APL, recently accepted by the open source organization, is definitely NOT free software, since it places definite limitations on what you can do with the software you receive under this license that are incompatible with the aims of free software. For more information on this important distinction, you should indeed visit www.gnu.org. GNAT remains free software, and in general free software will always meet the requirements for open source software, but it is very important to understand that the reverse is NOT the case. Robert Dewar P.S as for Glen being unhappy with the product we produce, I guess I cannot say more than that it is impossible to please everyone with a given product. This is a free and open market place. If Glen is unhappy with the GNAT product, I guess he will simply have to shop elsewhere for an Ada compiler. GNAT is not the only shop in town! It will remain the case that ACT is, as befits the Ada world, very much focussed on quality. Sometimes there is a conflict between ensuring quality and getting the latest and greatest version out right away without adequate testing. ACT chooses to resolve this conflict with an emphasis on careful QA for all our released products. This does not mean that all our products will be 100% completely problem free. We work towards that goal certainly, but if that was the requirement I am afraid people would get even more unhappy about delayed releases :-) Now, as is appropriate to this discussion, a short update on the 3.12 status. We have closed further development on 3.12 and are now stabilizing the release. It will have many nice new features, as has been consistently true of new GNAT releases, and we will try to get it into good shape for release as soon as possible. Robert Dewar Ada Core Technologies -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* Re: GNAT versions ( was :Ada compiler for PC?) 1999-04-22 0:00 ` Robert Dewar @ 1999-04-22 0:00 ` Glen 1999-04-23 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 0 siblings, 1 reply; 78+ messages in thread From: Glen @ 1999-04-22 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Robert Dewar wrote: > > In article <371E2F2A.662C8F4F@spam.com>, > root <roffey@shagbadger.demon.co.uk> wrote: > > Robert posts regards this subject ( even when he offers > > www.opensource.com instead of www.gnu.org for a > > definition of "free software". ) > > Please note that opensource is an appropriate source of > information on open source software, NOT on free software. > I have not ever suggested finding out about free software > from open source software. > http://www.dejanews.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=460428521 prick. To my fellow C.L.A readers, sorry last and final no matter what, I feel like Al Pacino in Godfather III "everytime I try to get out they draw me back in" Could someone on GNU.MISC.DISCUSS please read the threads, and pick up, this is the reality of commercial development of GPL - proprietory versions !! http://www.dejanews.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=451144738 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* Re: GNAT versions ( was :Ada compiler for PC?) 1999-04-22 0:00 ` Glen @ 1999-04-23 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-04-22 0:00 ` Russell Senior 1999-04-24 0:00 ` Ronald Cole 0 siblings, 2 replies; 78+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 1999-04-23 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <371F8B02.9BD7045F@spam.com>, Glen <SpamSpam@spam.com> wrote: > Could someone on GNU.MISC.DISCUSS please read the > threads, and pick up, this is the reality of commercial > development of GPL - proprietory versions !! The GPL and the notion of proprietary software are fundamentally incompatible. No versions of GNAT for example are, or could be proprietary. You must be using proprietary in an exceedingly unusual sense, different from how most people use the term. Indeed the whole point of the GPL is to avoid the disadvantages of the proprietary model of software. -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* Re: GNAT versions ( was :Ada compiler for PC?) 1999-04-23 0:00 ` Robert Dewar @ 1999-04-22 0:00 ` Russell Senior 1999-04-23 0:00 ` Samuel Mize ` (2 more replies) 1999-04-24 0:00 ` Ronald Cole 1 sibling, 3 replies; 78+ messages in thread From: Russell Senior @ 1999-04-22 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) >>>>> "Robert" == Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-dejanews.com> writes: Robert> Indeed the whole point of the GPL is to avoid the Robert> disadvantages of the proprietary model of software. Perhaps you could explain a little bit more about how it is in the Ada Community's interest to not share the GPL'd commercial and wavefront releases of GNAT. Not being a member of that community, it is the part I don't understand. Thanks. -- Russell Senior seniorr@teleport.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* Re: GNAT versions ( was :Ada compiler for PC?) 1999-04-22 0:00 ` Russell Senior @ 1999-04-23 0:00 ` Samuel Mize 1999-04-23 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-04-23 0:00 ` Russell Senior 1999-04-23 0:00 ` bourguet 1999-04-23 0:00 ` GNAT versions ( was :Ada compiler for PC?) Pascal Obry 2 siblings, 2 replies; 78+ messages in thread From: Samuel Mize @ 1999-04-23 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In comp.lang.ada Russell Senior <seniorr@teleport.com> wrote: >>>>>> "Robert" == Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-dejanews.com> writes: > > Robert> Indeed the whole point of the GPL is to avoid the > Robert> disadvantages of the proprietary model of software. > > Perhaps you could explain a little bit more about how it is in the Ada > Community's interest to not share the GPL'd commercial and wavefront > releases of GNAT. Not being a member of that community, it is the > part I don't understand. The commercial one IS shared. The commercial customer can always get all the source code, and is allowed to give out copies. Of course, if you didn't get it via a formal distribution from ACT they don't guarantee that it's uncorrupted, and if you aren't paying money to ACT they don't promise to support you. The public version is the most recent stable commercial version, "marked" as not formally distributed and therefore unsupported. "Wavefronts" are very early versions of things which, once fully debugged, will go into some commercial version and be released. A customer who gets a "wavefront" is, IIRC, legally allowed to give it out. But the wavefront recipients know that it's a preliminary work in progress, and not yet ready for wide distribution. Most don't distribute it. If you have evidence that threats are used to keep someone from giving out a wavefront, you may have evidence of action that goes against the intent of the GPL. But bear in mind that getting a wavefront is a favor, not a right. Most of us don't consider it a "threat" for ACT to be less inclined to do a favor for someone who has annoyed them, e.g. by giving out a prior wavefront. If the "wavefront" mechanism were being used to withhold useful or important changes from the community at large, that would not be nice, but (again, IIRC) it still wouldn't violate the GPL. The GPL is meant to ensure that the source code will be available to the CUSTOMER who gets a binary, not necessarily to the whole planet. And, I don't know of any real allegations that something important was being withheld for several releases. I've just heard complaints based in a desire to see and comment on work in progress, and the occasional vague suspicion that wavefronts have "the good stuff." Bear in mind that many compiler vendors will refuse to give out a preliminary version, even to a "supported" customer. You just get a promise that "we'll fix that in a later release." I find it amusing that a company who goes further to make its code available is therefore accused of withholding it. Best, Sam Mize -- Samuel Mize -- smize@imagin.net (home email) -- Team Ada Fight Spam: see http://www.cauce.org/ \\\ Smert Spamonam ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* Re: GNAT versions ( was :Ada compiler for PC?) 1999-04-23 0:00 ` Samuel Mize @ 1999-04-23 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-04-23 0:00 ` Russell Senior 1 sibling, 0 replies; 78+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 1999-04-23 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <7fq3mh$16m1@news1.newsguy.com>, Samuel Mize <smize@imagin.net> wrote: > I've just heard complaints based > in a desire to see and comment on work in progress, and > the occasional > vague suspicion that wavefronts have "the good stuff." Well some wavefronts have "the good stuff", but unfortunately, from time to time, some of them, especially the ones we do NOT send to anyone at all, have "the bad stuff". Asking for wavefronts to be widely distributed is sort of like asking for drugs to be made available immediately to the public before they are tested. It might save some lives, but also may kill some people! It's our job to separate the good from the bad, and make sure that only the good stuff gets to the final releases. We are getting pretty near that point with 3.12 now, and so pretty soon the Ada community, both those using the commercial version of GNAT Professional, and those using the public version, will be able to get their hands on all the good stuff. I will post announcements here on CLA as the 3.12 release process progresses. It will go through the following stages: 1. Preliminary beta release for selected targets to selected users. 2. General beta release of GNAT Professional available to all our customers, available on almost all targets. 3. Official release of GNAT Professional, available on all supported targets. 4. Release of the public version on all targets. One thing that we like to do if we can is to distribute for all targets at about the same time (we get yelled at loudly on CLA and elsewhere if we don't release for all targets at about the same time, since that understandably frustrates people -- yes yes I know the OS/2 users are frustrated right now for example, and this is a situation that we try to avoid). So we like to wait till kinks on all targets are ironed out before distributing the public version. But everything is going smoothly, there are significant functionality improvements, performance improvements, new tools, and many bugs fixed in 3.12. For those interested in learning more about our release procedures and policies, they have been discussed at length on CLA in the past, so a scan of the Dejanews archives will undoubtedly tell you all that you want to know, and more on this issue. Robert Dewar Ada Core Technologies -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* Re: GNAT versions ( was :Ada compiler for PC?) 1999-04-23 0:00 ` Samuel Mize 1999-04-23 0:00 ` Robert Dewar @ 1999-04-23 0:00 ` Russell Senior 1999-04-23 0:00 ` Robert Dewar ` (3 more replies) 1 sibling, 4 replies; 78+ messages in thread From: Russell Senior @ 1999-04-23 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) >>>>> "Samuel" == Samuel Mize <smize@imagin.net> writes: >>>>> "Robert" == Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-dejanews.com> writes: Robert> Indeed the whole point of the GPL is to avoid the Robert> disadvantages of the proprietary model of software. Russell> Perhaps you could explain a little bit more about how it is Russell> in the Ada Community's interest to not share the GPL'd Russell> commercial and wavefront releases of GNAT. Not being a Russell> member of that community, it is the part I don't understand. Samuel> The commercial one IS shared. The commercial customer can Samuel> always get all the source code, and is allowed to give out Samuel> copies. Thanks for the review. I am not accusing anyone of anything. I am asking a question. Of the three replies to my question that I saw this morning, none of them addressed the question. It has been noted that all of the GNAT releases (or snapshots or whatever you'd like to call them) are GPL'd and that recipients are legally entitled to share these with others. It has further been noted that recipients of the `non-public' releases tend not to share them with others, despite their legal right to do so. I am curious to know what goes into their calculus for deciding not to. That is all. Any attempts to help educate me on this question would be most welcome. Thanks. -- Russell Senior seniorr@teleport.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* Re: GNAT versions ( was :Ada compiler for PC?) 1999-04-23 0:00 ` Russell Senior @ 1999-04-23 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-04-23 0:00 ` Larry Kilgallen 1999-04-23 0:00 ` Samuel Mize ` (2 subsequent siblings) 3 siblings, 1 reply; 78+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 1999-04-23 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <86n1zz43dt.fsf@coulee.tdb.com>, Russell Senior <seniorr@teleport.com> wrote: > It has further been > noted that recipients of the `non-public' releases tend > not to share them with others, despite their legal right > to do so. I am curious to > know what goes into their calculus for deciding not to. > That is all. People have many motives for their actions. Just because something is legal does not mean it is a good idea to do it. Probably in practice, when it comes to wavefronts, people realize that the are only useful in the specific case where they are necessary to solve a particular bug. Note that we do not even make wavefronts available to all our customers, we only make them available in specific cases if in our judgment it is the only way to work around a specific problem. Distributing these work-in-progress snap-shots can certainly cause a lot of confusion. As you know, we are of the opinion that it is undesirable to the Ada community as a whole to distribute these widely. Sure there are a few hackers and enthusiasts who would like to fiddle with the latest and greatest, but we have to consider the interests of the community as a whole, and I guess the fact that the wavefronts do not get redistributed is an indication that our customers agree with our judgment here. Indeed most of our customers would prefer NOT to get wavefronts, and instead work around problems with our help in the official releases, and that seems perfectly reasonable. Robert Dewar Ada Core Technologies -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* Re: GNAT versions ( was :Ada compiler for PC?) 1999-04-23 0:00 ` Robert Dewar @ 1999-04-23 0:00 ` Larry Kilgallen 0 siblings, 0 replies; 78+ messages in thread From: Larry Kilgallen @ 1999-04-23 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Reply-To: Kilgallen@eisner.decus.org.nospam Organization: LJK Software Lines: 26 In article <7fqld6$htu$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-dejanews.com> writes: > In article <86n1zz43dt.fsf@coulee.tdb.com>, > Russell Senior <seniorr@teleport.com> wrote: > >> It has further been >> noted that recipients of the `non-public' releases tend >> not to share them with others, despite their legal right >> to do so. I am curious to >> know what goes into their calculus for deciding not to. >> That is all. > > People have many motives for their actions. Just because > something is legal does not mean it is a good idea to do > it. Probably in practice, when it comes to wavefronts, > people realize that the are only useful in the specific > case where they are necessary to solve a particular > bug. Note that we do not even make wavefronts available > to all our customers, we only make them available in > specific cases if in our judgment it is the only way > to work around a specific problem. It seems unlikely that someone with "a specific problem" would be at a point in their own work cycle where they have time to get into the software distribution business. Larry Kilgallen ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* Re: GNAT versions ( was :Ada compiler for PC?) 1999-04-23 0:00 ` Russell Senior 1999-04-23 0:00 ` Robert Dewar @ 1999-04-23 0:00 ` Samuel Mize 1999-04-25 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-04-24 0:00 ` Russ Allbery [not found] ` <7fqld6$htu$1@nnrp1.dej <1999Apr23.172908.1@eisner> 3 siblings, 1 reply; 78+ messages in thread From: Samuel Mize @ 1999-04-23 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In comp.lang.ada Russell Senior <seniorr@teleport.com> wrote: > Thanks for the review. I am not accusing anyone of anything. I am > asking a question. Of the three replies to my question that I saw > this morning, none of them addressed the question. That's because there are some people who take an angry stance about this and ride it into the dirt. (I mean, agree with them or not, but they go on and on and on...) So people here are a little twitchy. I'm glad this isn't your intent. > It has been noted that ... > recipients of the `non-public' [GNAT] releases tend not to share > them with others, despite their legal right to do so. I am curious to > know what goes into their calculus for deciding not to. That is all. There are two kind of non-public releases, "wavefronts" and "commercial releases." A wavefront is an in-development copy that may not be fully tested, hasn't been regression tested, hasn't been through QA, and may be quite unstable. It's given to a customer who badly needs a new capability, or perhaps the fix to a specific bug. A commercial release is a formally released product that ACT has stabilized, put through regression test, beta test and QA, and generally believes is ready to be released as a commercial product. ACT doesn't want wavefronts passed around widely, because they're a snapshot from the middle of development, and they expect it to have problems. They don't want to be flooded with bug reports on code that they weren't done with in the first place. ACT's customers go along because they understand and accept ACT's rationale. They may also want to encourage ACT to give them other wavefronts later. Bear in mind, ACT has no obligation to do so. They are only obliged to release code when its binary is delivered to a customer; and even then, IIRC, only to that customer. ACT's customers seldom bother to distribute the commercial version, because ACT will publish it soon as a public version anyway. One might be able to beg a copy from a buddy who's a supported customer if, for instance, one were having trouble with a compiler bug that is fixed in that release. Nothing wrong with that. Once the commercial version is fully stable, ACT cuts a new copy of that release, which is the "public" version. The only change from the commercial version is the version number. This will lag the commercial version. This is partly because this is non-paying work, and partly so that any bugs which are found by early adopters can be fixed for the public version. (Again, to avoid a flood of redundant bug reports when the thundering horde of free users gets hold of the product.) So, where's the conflict coming from? Some people would like to see wavefronts issued publicly and periodically -- even frequently. I believe some want to feel they have the very "cutting edge technology" compiler, some may have wanted a more-recent version in the hope that a specific bug was fixed, and some just want to look into the development process. These people are not in a position to get wavefronts from ACT under ACT's current policies, and they get frustrated and vocal about it. I feel that there are fair arguments on both sides. I'm biased toward the ACT position in this specific case, and that's probably clear from my writing. GNAT is large and complex, and it's unlikely IMHO that adding a few thousand more cooks will improve the broth. On the other hand, I certainly understand the frustration of people who would like to be more involved in its evolution. I hope they get together, set up some kind of outside-ACT development tree, and coordinate with ACT. One of the goals of GNAT was to encourage experimentation with new ideas and extensions to Ada, and I feel this would encourage work in that area. But on the other other hand, this isn't ACT's job. People who want to have a parallel-and-coordinated development effort must set it up on their own. IMHO. I hope you've found this helpful. Best, Sam Mize -- Samuel Mize -- smize@imagin.net (home email) -- Team Ada Fight Spam: see http://www.cauce.org/ \\\ Smert Spamonam ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* Re: GNAT versions ( was :Ada compiler for PC?) 1999-04-23 0:00 ` Samuel Mize @ 1999-04-25 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 0 siblings, 0 replies; 78+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 1999-04-25 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <7fqjo2$1hmi@news1.newsguy.com>, Samuel Mize <smize@imagin.net> wrote: > A wavefront is an in-development copy that may not be > fully tested, hasn't been regression tested, hasn't been > through QA, and may be quite unstable. Actually that's *too* negative, we never let anything out of ACT, even a wavefront, that has not been fully regression tested against the ACVC suite, and against the internal (at this stage VERY substantial ACT regression suite). Indeed our normal internal procedure for ANY internal fix, however small, is to run the ACT regression suite before a checkin to make sure no regressions have occurred. Nevertheless, it is quite true that this does not represent "fully tested", since part of full testing is field testing at customer sites in a beta test program, which most certainly does not happen for each wavefront. As for QA, even a wavefront has been through our internal QA process, including running the ACVC test suite, our ACT regression suite, and the DEC test suite. However, once again, the full QA process most certainly includes beta testing, and this is only done on formal releases. -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* Re: GNAT versions ( was :Ada compiler for PC?) 1999-04-23 0:00 ` Russell Senior 1999-04-23 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-04-23 0:00 ` Samuel Mize @ 1999-04-24 0:00 ` Russ Allbery [not found] ` <7fqld6$htu$1@nnrp1.dej <1999Apr23.172908.1@eisner> 3 siblings, 0 replies; 78+ messages in thread From: Russ Allbery @ 1999-04-24 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In gnu.misc.discuss, Russell Senior <seniorr@teleport.com> writes: > It has been noted that all of the GNAT releases (or snapshots or > whatever you'd like to call them) are GPL'd and that recipients are > legally entitled to share these with others. It has further been noted > that recipients of the `non-public' releases tend not to share them with > others, despite their legal right to do so. I am curious to know what > goes into their calculus for deciding not to. Well, I can't speak for all the people who make that decision, but my personal answer to such a question would be "simple politeness." If someone gives me something to test and tells me it's not ready for general redistribution, I would tend to respect their wishes unless I had some good reason not to. -- Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) <URL:http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <7fqld6$htu$1@nnrp1.dej <1999Apr23.172908.1@eisner>]
[parent not found: <7frqmj$bg6$1@mulga.cs.mu.oz.au>]
* Re: GNAT versions ( was :Ada compiler for PC?) [not found] ` <7frqmj$bg6$1@mulga.cs.mu.oz.au> @ 1999-04-24 0:00 ` Leslie Mikesell 1999-04-25 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 0 siblings, 1 reply; 78+ messages in thread From: Leslie Mikesell @ 1999-04-24 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <7frqmj$bg6$1@mulga.cs.mu.oz.au>, Fergus Henderson <fjh@cs.mu.oz.au> wrote: >kilgallen@eisner.decus.org (Larry Kilgallen) writes: > >>It seems unlikely that someone with "a specific problem" >>would be at a point in their own work cycle where they >>have time to get into the software distribution business. > >These days we have an amazing invention called "The Internet" which >makes distributing software very easy. Yes, and wouldn't you expect everyone with the previous public release to have that same 'specific problem'? And for them, the only way to get the fix is to become a commercial customer at which time they magically become capable of dealing with the other potential problems of the wavefront releases... Les Mikesell les@mcs.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* Re: GNAT versions ( was :Ada compiler for PC?) 1999-04-24 0:00 ` Leslie Mikesell @ 1999-04-25 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-04-25 0:00 ` Maciej Stachowiak 1999-04-25 0:00 ` Russ Allbery 0 siblings, 2 replies; 78+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 1999-04-25 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <7ftfj4$vln$1@Jupiter.mcs.net>, les@MCS.COM (Leslie Mikesell) wrote: > Yes, and wouldn't you expect everyone with the previous > public release to have that same 'specific problem'? And > for them, the only way to get the fix is to become a > commercial customer at which time they magically become > capable of dealing with the other potential problems of > the wavefront releases... Well in fact it would NOT be good enough for them to become a customer. We don't make wavefronts generally available to our customers. Why not? Because in general it would not be helpful. Yes, a development wavefront may fix some problems, but until really adequate testing has been done, which is generally not possible for wavefronts, it may well introduce new problems, and new features that have been added may intefere with your existing programs. For example, if you have (unwisely but it happens) done a WITH of one of the GNAT internal system implementation units, then a wavefront may change that interface without warning. Now this is something that you will have to deal with in the major release cycle, but you probably do not want to mess with this just on the possibility that the wavefront may fix some problems you are not aware of. A customer getting a wavefront is in the following situation: 1. They are fixing something that they know is broken in their code, and there is no other way to fix it. Most often we can find a work around, and in that case we do NOT provide a wavefront. But if there is no other way, then it becomes worth the risk of moving to a new version of the compiler without waiting for a new release. 2. When a customer gets a wavefront, they have direct support from us, which means that if they do run into problems, we can help them out. I would *never* advise anyone to move to a wavefront unless they were forced to. It seems a very bad idea to me to be constantly switching compiler versions. Obviously it would be possible to mitigate the risks of wavefronts if we had the resources to develop two versions simultaneously, the development version with all the new features, and the old version with minimal bug fixes. Indeed this is somewhat what Cygnus does with EGCS. Obviously EGCS does not have the new development stuff that Cygnus has internally (which is very closely held until it is released), but they do spend significant resources coordinating bug fixes with EGCS. Perhaps in the future ACT will have more resources to do this kind of dual development. It may happen at least to some extent with the work of the GNAT/Linux group, at least that is what we hope can be worked out. But it is not a zero-cost proposition by any means. Note for example that GDB has nothing analogous to the EGCS process at the moment. Right now, Cygnus feels that they are doing most of the GDB work anyway, so it does not make sense. As time goes on and more people contribute directly to GDB as seems likely to happen in the future, it will make more sense to create a more open process for GDB. Obviously if there were more players than ACT contributing directly to the GNAT work, then the value of such coordination would increase. This seems to be beginning to happen with the GNAT/Linux work, one useful patch recently propagated from the GNAT/Linux team to ACT, and we have prepared a couple of critical Linux patches to go in the opposite direction. One problem of course is that only ACT has access to the ACT regression suite. This is fundamental, it is mostly proprietary code, that we promise to guard very closely. Similarly, the DEC test suite is proprietary code to which we have access, but most certainly not distribution rights. Of course the ACVC suite exists publicly, and this is at least a first level test of externally developed patches and fixes. Anyway we will see, The 3.12p release will provide a more stable starting point for such interaction. Why more stable? Because each release so far of GNAT, with rare exceptions is more stable than the prior one. Why? Because we work hard to make it so. Robert Dewar Ada Core Technologies -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* Re: GNAT versions ( was :Ada compiler for PC?) 1999-04-25 0:00 ` Robert Dewar @ 1999-04-25 0:00 ` Maciej Stachowiak 1999-04-26 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-04-25 0:00 ` Russ Allbery 1 sibling, 1 reply; 78+ messages in thread From: Maciej Stachowiak @ 1999-04-25 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-dejanews.com> writes: > In article <7ftfj4$vln$1@Jupiter.mcs.net>, > > Obviously it would be possible to mitigate the risks of > wavefronts if we had the resources to develop two versions > simultaneously, the development version with all the new > features, and the old version with minimal bug fixes. > Indeed this is somewhat what Cygnus does with EGCS. > Obviously EGCS does not have the new development stuff > that Cygnus has internally (which is very closely held > until it is released), but they do spend significant > resources coordinating bug fixes with EGCS. > This is not IMO a fair description of the EGCS project. EGCS contains a lot more than bug fixes, it has a lot of new feature development as well - new optimizations, C++ front-end work and new platform support, among other things. Cygnus has regularly delivered the code for major features to the EGCS tree, and I suspect quite a few major features appeared in the EGCS tree before they were shipped to Cygnus customers. In fact, EGCS began as essentially a drop of the Cygnus internal development tree. Of course, I am not a Cygnus employee so I can't really speak for their proedures, but that is how it looks to me. Also, even though Cygnus provides the infrastructure for EGCS and pays a number of employees to work on it, EGCS is not really controlled by Cygnus, but rather by a steering committee on which Cygnus employees constitute a minority. - Maciej Stachowiak ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* Re: GNAT versions ( was :Ada compiler for PC?) 1999-04-25 0:00 ` Maciej Stachowiak @ 1999-04-26 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-04-25 0:00 ` Maciej Stachowiak 1999-04-26 0:00 ` Per Bothner 0 siblings, 2 replies; 78+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 1999-04-26 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <m3g15ovkpk.fsf@207-172-255-37.s37.tnt2.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.c om>, Maciej Stachowiak <mstachow@alum.mit.edu> wrote: > Cygnus has regularly delivered the code for major > features to the EGCS tree, and I suspect quite a few > major features appeared in the EGCS tree before they were > shipped to Cygnus customers. That would be an interesting suspicion to back up. I know only of major features in the Cygnus tree that are not in EGCS. Indeed there are features in GNUpro that have not yet been put in EGCS. I am sure they all will be, just as all internal GNAT developments are eventually made public. Yes, of course Cygnus drops developments to EGCS, no one is saying that they don't. It is just that, as in the case of GNAT, there is usually a lag between the development of new features and their dropping into EGCS. Of course anyone could take the public version of GNAT and do an EGCS like setup for it (the GNAT/Linux project has some of these aspects). However, that is much more effective if ACT not only drops new versions periodically, but also develops fixes for the current public version that can go there without waiting months for the next drop. But that is what takes very substantial resources, and we don't have the resources to do this yet, although we are hoping to do it on a limited basis starting with 3.12 and specifically for the GNAT/Linux project. Right now, GNAT is more analogous to how Cygnus handles GDB. That may change in the future, but Cygnus feels that since it does almost all the work on GDB currently, it is not obviously worth their while to invest resources in an EGCS like effort for GDB. That may well change in the future, if other parties start doing major work on GDB. The question of the level of activity from other parties is of course a critical one. Most of the agitation with respect to GNAT has been from people who want to get early versions for their own use, and unfortunately there has been relatively little indepedent effort (in fact two of the big independent contributors to the GNAT effort, Doug Rupp for the DOS port, and Geert Bosch for the OS/2 port now work full time for ACT. I must say that Markus Kuhn and others seem to be having some success in getting the Linux/GNAT project going, and an interesting first event a few weeks ago was the first submission of a patch from this project that was adopted into the GNAT sources since it was correct and helpful. A small start, but an important one, and perhaps the harbinger of a more active development and flow of bug fixes and improvements in both directions. Realistically one can expect more action in the area of bindings and tools than in the compiler proper, but who knows? In fact, EGCS began > as essentially a drop of the Cygnus internal development tree. > > Of course, I am not a Cygnus employee so I can't really speak for > their proedures, but that is how it looks to me. > > Also, even though Cygnus provides the infrastructure for EGCS and pays > a number of employees to work on it, EGCS is not really controlled by > Cygnus, but rather by a steering committee on which Cygnus employees > constitute a minority. > > - Maciej Stachowiak > -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* Re: GNAT versions ( was :Ada compiler for PC?) 1999-04-26 0:00 ` Robert Dewar @ 1999-04-25 0:00 ` Maciej Stachowiak 1999-04-26 0:00 ` Per Bothner 1 sibling, 0 replies; 78+ messages in thread From: Maciej Stachowiak @ 1999-04-25 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-dejanews.com> writes: > In article > <m3g15ovkpk.fsf@207-172-255-37.s37.tnt2.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.c > om>, > Maciej Stachowiak <mstachow@alum.mit.edu> wrote: > > Cygnus has regularly delivered the code for major > > features to the EGCS tree, and I suspect quite a few > > major features appeared in the EGCS tree before they were > > shipped to Cygnus customers. > > That would be an interesting suspicion to back up. One singinficant example would be the Java front end. That appeared in the EGCS tree long before it was at all fit for use, so I doubt it got shipped to customers first. From a rough examination of their web pages, it is not clear whether they are selling it now. > Yes, of course Cygnus drops developments to EGCS, no one > is saying that they don't. In fact, a large reason they started it was to avoid maintaining large internal code forks. > It is just that, as in the case of GNAT, there is usually a lag > between the development of new features and their dropping into > EGCS. There's a difference between lag time from development to drop to the public tree and lag time between ship to paying customers and drop to the public tree. Of course, Cygnus likely does both for different things. I am not going to get into this flame war though, I am not even an Ada user and I think anyone should have the right to use whatever release policy they choose as long as they comply with relevant licenses. - Maciej ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* Re: GNAT versions ( was :Ada compiler for PC?) 1999-04-26 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-04-25 0:00 ` Maciej Stachowiak @ 1999-04-26 0:00 ` Per Bothner 1999-04-27 0:00 ` Stan Shebs ` (2 more replies) 1 sibling, 3 replies; 78+ messages in thread From: Per Bothner @ 1999-04-26 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Maciej Stachowiak <mstachow@alum.mit.edu> wrote: > ... I suspect quite a few major features appeared in the EGCS > tree before they were shipped to Cygnus customers. In article <7g0bdf$3q9$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-dejanews.com> wrote: >That would be an interesting suspicion to back up. I know >only of major features in the Cygnus tree that are not in EGCS. Well, I can't think of a single Gcc feature, major or otherwise, that was in our standard customer release before being in EGCS. Note: I am talking about the standard GNUPro product; not contracted deliverables made to a specific customer. (Obviously, if somebody pays for a new port to an unannounced chip, we are not going to put into Egcs before it is announced!) But in general, customers do *not* get major features before Egcs. Since we merge *from* Egcs to our internal tree, rather than vice versa, the check-in policy at Cygnus is: Nothing gets into our internal tree unless it is in Egcs *or* specially marked as being Cygnus only or "sanitized". That should make it obvious that the default is to check things into Egcs first or at the same time. >Yes, of course Cygnus drops developments to EGCS, no one >is saying that they don't. It is just that, as in the case >of GNAT, there is usually a lag between the development >of new features and their dropping into EGCS. As I have pointed out, this is generally not true. It may be worth pointing out that Dewar's company ACT is a competitor of Cygnus, though we have mostly kept apart. >Indeed there are features in GNUpro that have not >yet been put in EGCS. I am sure they all will be, just as >all internal GNAT developments are eventually made public. Well, some parts of our product are non-free, and there are no plans to change that (though the mix of what is free and what is non-free will of course change). Specifically, Source Navigator (which is a separate product from GNUPro) is non-free, as is gdbtk (which I believe *is* part of GNUPro). >Right now, GNAT is more analogous to how Cygnus handles >GDB. That may change in the future, but Cygnus feels that >since it does almost all the work on GDB currently, it is >not obviously worth their while to invest resources in an >EGCS like effort for GDB. That may well change in the >future, if other parties start doing major work on GDB. I don't think it is proper for you to say what "Cygnus feels". At the very least put in a "my guess is ...". The reason EGCS was started was because things has reached a crisis point. This happened while the official Gcc maintainer was working for ACT. Gdb has also had problems the last year with openness and timely releases; we are working on improving this. A public cvs repository is one possibility (but I am not in the gdb group, so I cannot speak for them). -- --Per Bothner Cygnus Solutions bothner@cygnus.com http://www.cygnus.com/~bothner ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* Re: GNAT versions ( was :Ada compiler for PC?) 1999-04-26 0:00 ` Per Bothner @ 1999-04-27 0:00 ` Stan Shebs 1999-04-27 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-04-27 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 2 siblings, 0 replies; 78+ messages in thread From: Stan Shebs @ 1999-04-27 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) bothner@cygnus.com (Per Bothner) writes: > [...] Gdb has also had problems the last year > with openness and timely releases; we are working on improving this. > A public cvs repository is one possibility (but I am not in the > gdb group, so I cannot speak for them). The repository already exists, take a look at sourceware.cygnus.com. Stan Shebs Cygnus Solutions shebs@cygnus.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* Re: GNAT versions ( was :Ada compiler for PC?) 1999-04-26 0:00 ` Per Bothner 1999-04-27 0:00 ` Stan Shebs @ 1999-04-27 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-04-27 0:00 ` Matthew Heaney 1999-04-27 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 2 siblings, 1 reply; 78+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 1999-04-27 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <7g3klg$26p$1@rtl.cygnus.com>, bothner@cygnus.com (Per Bothner) wrote: > The reason EGCS was started was because things has > reached a crisis point. This happened while the official > Gcc maintainer was working for ACT. Since Cygnus likes to correct you when people say that Cygnus controls EGCS, let's clarify a little here. Richard Kenner in his role as the maintainer of GCC was working for New York University, not for ACT! That's an important distinction, just as important as the fact that EGCS is not controlled by Cygnus :-) -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* Re: GNAT versions ( was :Ada compiler for PC?) 1999-04-27 0:00 ` Robert Dewar @ 1999-04-27 0:00 ` Matthew Heaney 1999-04-28 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 0 siblings, 1 reply; 78+ messages in thread From: Matthew Heaney @ 1999-04-27 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-dejanews.com> writes: > In article <7g3klg$26p$1@rtl.cygnus.com>, > bothner@cygnus.com (Per Bothner) wrote: > > The reason EGCS was started was because things has > > reached a crisis point. This happened while the official > > Gcc maintainer was working for ACT. > > Since Cygnus likes to correct you when people say that > Cygnus controls EGCS, let's clarify a little here. Richard > Kenner in his role as the maintainer of GCC was working > for New York University, not for ACT! That's an important > distinction, just as important as the fact that EGCS is > not controlled by Cygnus :-) But was I supposed to infer from the comment that because Richard (the GCC maintainer) was working for ACT (really, NYU), that that caused or otherwise contributed to the crisis? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* Re: GNAT versions ( was :Ada compiler for PC?) 1999-04-27 0:00 ` Matthew Heaney @ 1999-04-28 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-04-28 0:00 ` David Kastrup 1999-04-29 0:00 ` Per Bothner 0 siblings, 2 replies; 78+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 1999-04-28 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <m3u2u2t0xh.fsf@mheaney.ni.net>, Matthew Heaney <matthew_heaney@acm.org> wrote: > But was I supposed to infer from the comment that because > Richard (the GCC maintainer) was working for ACT (really, > NYU), that that caused otherwise contributed to the > crisis? Well I can't speak for the intentions of the poster in terms of what he intended you *infer*, but if you were to draw such an inference it would be entirely incorrect. There is quite a bit of history rewriting going on here, but no one has said anything *quite* that outrageous, and to be fair, I do not think that the original poster intended you to draw such a conclusion, which would be entirely false. On the contrary, as with many other volunteer activities, the critical thing is for the time of volunteers to be supported adequately, and indeed ACT put substantial resources into assisting with the continued maintenance of GCC, something that benefited us, but also benefited the larger GCC community. A similar situation arises with Cygnus today, they invest substantial resources to help with the maintenance of the Cygnus tree, and those resources are enormously helpful to the gcc community at large, not just to Cygnus. That leads some people to harbour suspicions that Cygnus really secretly controls the process and somehow twists it to serve their own ends, but really this is quite absurd, and does not correspond at all to the reality of the situation. To draw the inference you suggest here is equally absurd (as well as being quite unfair to those involved!) Robert Dewar Ada Core Technologies -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* Re: GNAT versions ( was :Ada compiler for PC?) 1999-04-28 0:00 ` Robert Dewar @ 1999-04-28 0:00 ` David Kastrup 1999-04-28 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-04-29 0:00 ` Per Bothner 1 sibling, 1 reply; 78+ messages in thread From: David Kastrup @ 1999-04-28 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-dejanews.com> writes: > A similar situation arises with Cygnus today, they invest > substantial resources to help with the maintenance of the > Cygnus tree, and those resources are enormously helpful to > the gcc community at large, not just to Cygnus. > > That leads some people to harbour suspicions > that Cygnus really secretly controls the process and > somehow twists it to serve their own ends, but really this > is quite absurd, and does not correspond at all to the > reality of the situation. It *does* correspond to the reality of the situation as Cygnus invests considerable manpower in the process. In a way, they are preparing well-trodden paths that are convenient for their purposes by investing appropriate resources. If they are not interested in some direction of work, they'll leave it to other parties. While I find no wrong with that, it would be foolish to deny that the willingness to invest a large amount of work in GCC *does* have a large influence on what direction the compiler development is taking. If a few larger vendors realized this somewhat more (Intel seems to have waken up to it somewhat recently), this could only help GCC development. CPU manufacturers actually should have an even larger interest as Cygnus in getting actively involved in GCC. It lends large value improvements to their products with minimal costs. -- David Kastrup Phone: +49-234-700-5570 Email: dak@neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de Fax: +49-234-709-4209 Institut f�r Neuroinformatik, Universit�tsstr. 150, 44780 Bochum, Germany ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* Re: GNAT versions ( was :Ada compiler for PC?) 1999-04-28 0:00 ` David Kastrup @ 1999-04-28 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 0 siblings, 0 replies; 78+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 1999-04-28 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <m2so9lccbw.fsf@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de > It *does* correspond to the reality of the situation as > Cygnus invests considerable manpower in the process. In > a way, they are preparing well-trodden paths that are > convenient for their purposes by investing appropriate > resources. If they are not interested in some direction > of work, they'll leave it to other parties. Yes, of course, anyone putting work into gcc is inclined to put in things that they find interesting and useful, and who ever puts in more effort will have more influence. But there is nothing improper, suspicious, or in any way negative about that. A similar situation occurs with GNAT. Since ACT makes almost 100% of the changes to GNAT currently (we only very rarely get patches submitted, almost all of which have been immediately incorporated), ACT gets to make the decisions on which features go in etc. This is of course based primarily on the needs of our paying customers. (two of the the most notable volunteer contributions to GNAT were the DOS port by Doug Rupp, and the OS/2 work by Geert Bosch, and not only did we acquire this work, but Doug and Geert now work full time for ACT/ACTE.) If the GNAT/Linux project ends up encouraging more useful contributions, particularly in the tools and binding area, then it will begin to have a significant influence on the direction of the GNAT development, and that is welcome all round as far as I am concerned. There are some other interesting developments such as David Botton's work on COM interfacing on NT, and ACT is definitely interested in working closely with anyone doing useful development that is GNAT related. Robert Dewar Ada Core Technologies -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* Re: GNAT versions ( was :Ada compiler for PC?) 1999-04-28 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-04-28 0:00 ` David Kastrup @ 1999-04-29 0:00 ` Per Bothner 1999-04-30 0:00 ` Robert Dewar ` (2 more replies) 1 sibling, 3 replies; 78+ messages in thread From: Per Bothner @ 1999-04-29 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) I don't want to say too much here, because I don't remember or know all the issues [in starting Egcs]. But it is no secret that Kenner was not working out as Gcc maintainer. This was not due to any lack of technical skills. I think the biggest problems were a lack a management skills, and an unwillingness to delegate. And as Dewar says: being Gcc maintainer is a tremendous time sink, and doing a good job while maintaining a "day job" is almost impossible. I don't think it was a major factor that Kenner was also working for ACT with the associated possible conflict of interest. However, there was at least the perception that in a few case he made some questionable decisions based on concerns about GNAT. For example, C++ exception handling was delayed because Kenner had his own ideas as to how it "ought" to be done. (I don't know what the technical issues were. Maybe he was just too much of a perfectionist - this is certainly a problem I'm all too familar with in myself.) -- --Per Bothner Cygnus Solutions bothner@cygnus.com http://www.cygnus.com/~bothner ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* Re: GNAT versions ( was :Ada compiler for PC?) 1999-04-29 0:00 ` Per Bothner @ 1999-04-30 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-05-04 0:00 ` Mike Stump 1999-05-17 0:00 ` Richard Kenner 2 siblings, 0 replies; 78+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 1999-04-30 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <7gbjhg$s98$1@rtl.cygnus.com>, bothner@cygnus.com (Per Bothner) wrote: > I don't think it was a major factor that Kenner was also working for > ACT with the associated possible conflict of interest. However, > there was at least the perception that in a few case he made some > questionable decisions based on concerns about GNAT. For example, > C++ exception handling was delayed because Kenner had his own ideas > as to how it "ought" to be done. (I don't know what the technical > issues were. Maybe he was just too much of a perfectionist - this > is certainly a problem I'm all too familar with in myself.) It is probably fair to say that Kenner is a perfectionist. He thinks that things should be documented (Per says he does not know the issues, perhaps he should check :-) But one of the major issues with exception handling was indeed documentation, and in fact a special deal was done to put this into gcc without the documentation, accepting instead a promise that it would be done later! The concerns about exceptions had nothing at all to do with GNAT. This is simply a guess on Per's part, who as he says, does not know the issues. The concern was on technical issues (such as thread safety, which of course are language independent), and on the documentation issues. I think Per's continued implications that perhaps Richard was working deliberately against Cygnus interests because ACT was a competitor are pretty bogus on the face of it. ACT's interests have been very specifically in Ada (consider the name of the company!) And as far as we know Cygnus has had zero interest in Ada. In practice, the issue was indeed to a considerable extent one of too much work for any one person. ACT funded a lot of Richard Kenner's time to work on gcc in practice, so that it could indeed be his day job, but even so, there is a lot for one person to do, and furthermore, it is pretty hard to please everyone in a situation like this. But in general I would advise Per to investigate thoroughly the circumstances of both EGCS at the start, and the exception issues, before making guesses. Even with the disclaimers that he does not know the issues, such guesses can be misleading. Robert Dewar Ada Core Technologies -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* Re: GNAT versions ( was :Ada compiler for PC?) 1999-04-29 0:00 ` Per Bothner 1999-04-30 0:00 ` Robert Dewar @ 1999-05-04 0:00 ` Mike Stump 1999-05-05 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-05-17 0:00 ` Richard Kenner 2 siblings, 1 reply; 78+ messages in thread From: Mike Stump @ 1999-05-04 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <7gbjhg$s98$1@rtl.cygnus.com>, Per Bothner <bothner@cygnus.com> wrote: >However, there was at least the perception that in a few case he made >some questionable decisions based on concerns about GNAT. For >example, C++ exception handling was delayed because Kenner had his >own ideas as to how it "ought" to be done. Here is my take... I don't think any of this was related to GNAT. My take is just a simple conflict of styles. It only delayed EH by 2-7 years. My choice, would have been to not delay it, and just get it working, then working well, then well ported, then clean up the interfaces and documentation. I resisted doing it his way, and he resisted accepting it my way. I don't yet understand the benefit of delaying EH, maybe in time I might... In retrospect, I think it might have been easier to do the entire thing, port it to all the major platforms, work out the details, clean it up, document it, then submit it after the fact. What I wanted to do, was expose the source code control system to my learning, so as to preserve the record of what was learned. One can do up the whole thing first, then check it in en-mass, but what I don't like about that, is there is no history of why. It _feels_ less open to me. I think there are more benefits by having it more _open_. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* Re: GNAT versions ( was :Ada compiler for PC?) 1999-05-04 0:00 ` Mike Stump @ 1999-05-05 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-05-06 0:00 ` Mike Stump 1999-05-08 0:00 ` Pascal F. Martin 0 siblings, 2 replies; 78+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 1999-05-05 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <FB8DLq.BH6@kithrup.com>, mrs@kithrup.com (Mike Stump) wrote: > In article <7gbjhg$s98$1@rtl.cygnus.com>, > I don't think any of this was related to GNAT. My take is just a > simple conflict of styles. It only delayed EH by 2-7 years. My > choice, would have been to not delay it, and just get it working, then > working well, then well ported, then clean up the interfaces and > documentation. That certainly seems backwards to me, for me the sequence of software production goes like: design and document the interfaces refine the interfaces till they are correct then implement I find the style of doing things backwards worrisome, though I realize it is common enough, especially in the C community. We certainly follow this procedure internally at ACT. If someone thinks a new feature is useful, then first we have a general discussion of the idea, then we design the feature (e.g. package specs are produced and reviewed), then we do the implementation of the bodies. I doubt this description of normal software design procedures seems strange, at least I would expect it was entirely familiar to the comp.lang.ada users reading this! The trouble with doing things backwards is that you are realying FAR too heavily on testing alone as the criterion for correctness. Even if there were a comprehensive and systematic test suite, including significant amounts of code, testing is never sufficient on its own to ensure that your design is correct. I must say I am a little puzzled by Mike's reluctance to document things. If EH was really delayed 7 years because of this (I think that's a bit of an exaggeration :-) it is a pity ... As to whether one should bend the rules and allow things to be implemented without documentation, and instead hope for documentation to appear later, it's hard to say. Sometimes you DO have to make this compromise, but it often does not work out well. The trouble is that many people who have this code-now, document-later approach have a lot of trouble coming through with the documentation later. For me personally, writing well documented code is a pleasure, sort of like writing a text book that students like to read. If code is accessible and easy to understand, and good documentation is part of the reason, then that is a pleasing achievment in itself. I get the impression that a lot of programmers don't share this view, and find documentation a nuisance -- too bad. P.S. I still find the documentation of the exception handling stuff in GCC inadequate. This may be just lack of skill on my part in reading C code of this kind (clearly there is an expectation that you figure out some of the details of the specification by looking at the details of the coding, which I find uncomfortable. One unfortunate consequence is that the GNAT exception handling has been developed entirely independently, and I suspect that there could be more merging, though I am not sure of this, because to have an exception handling mechanism usable by both C++ and Ada 95, a perfectly reasonable goal, would require careful examination of the specifications *before* starting to implement. Anyway, I do agree with Mike on one important point, the exception handling requirements for GNAT had nothing at all to do with the development of EH handling in GCC! -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* Re: GNAT versions ( was :Ada compiler for PC?) 1999-05-05 0:00 ` Robert Dewar @ 1999-05-06 0:00 ` Mike Stump 1999-05-06 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-05-08 0:00 ` Pascal F. Martin 1 sibling, 1 reply; 78+ messages in thread From: Mike Stump @ 1999-05-06 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) >I still find the documentation of the exception handling stuff >in GCC inadequate. Well, feel free to donate improvements to the documentation, gcc always welcomes clarifications and more complete explanations. :-) I'd be happy to answer your questions about it. >One unfortunate consequence is that the GNAT exception handling has >been developed entirely independently, Well, I take exception to the word entirely. There was a mailing list called eh@cygnus.com, and we discussed tons of details and issues, from many language perspectives, including Ada and C++. This experience shaped and drove my implementation, the implementation that now exists in gcc. I would anticipate that it did the same for the Ada implementation. If true, they are closely related. >I suspect that there could be more merging, Sure, each front end can replicate it's own exception scheme[1], but this is a poor design. A better design is where the common aspects of the design are shared by the frontends as facilities in the backend. C++ and Java already share EH. Chill needs to be converted, but there is no pressing need, as not to many people use or maintain it. :-) Yes, I know you already knew that. I say it, just to nag a little, in hopes that Ada will embrace the functionality that is now there and extend it. >because to have an exception handling mechanism usable by both C++ >and Ada 95, a perfectly reasonable goal, would require careful >examination of the specifications *before* starting to implement. :-) Yes, and that was done to a large extent. The missing pieces are meant to slot into the existing design, in a natural way. 1 - Actually, my experience is that this is not possible, that is _why_ EH is now in gcc. The frontend implementation could only go so far, then things like flow, really wanted to know more and understand more. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* Re: GNAT versions ( was :Ada compiler for PC?) 1999-05-06 0:00 ` Mike Stump @ 1999-05-06 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-05-06 0:00 ` Andi Kleen 1999-05-07 0:00 ` Mike Stump 0 siblings, 2 replies; 78+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 1999-05-06 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <FBAEH2.9C0@kithrup.com>, mrs@kithrup.com (Mike Stump) wrote: > Well, I take exception to the word entirely. There was a mailing list > called eh@cygnus.com, and we discussed tons of details and issues, > from many language perspectives, including Ada and C++. This was in my response to the claim that unfortunately the exception handling in Ada had been developed entirely independently of the mechanism in C++. I did the design and implementation of the exception handling in Ada, so I am pretty familiar with what was and was not done. Yes there were early discussions about trying to deal with commonality between the languages, but unfortunately these did not result in a common facility. I tried to understand what had been done for C++ but failed. Others here at ACT are still trying to do more merging here, but it is not easy. I found no high level interface oriented description of the mechanism used for C++. Perhaps I simply did not look hard enough, or just did not know how to read the code correctly. I find the back end of GCC rather difficult to navigate (and indeed in a recent email Per Bothner (hope I remembered the spelling right) claimed that the entire gcc compiler was ill-documented so why single out the exception handling). I find that position FAR too pessimistic, and indeed in general the gcc backend is documented a lot better than many proprietary compilers with which I am familiar, but in this particular case, we have not yet achieved the ideal of merging the exception handling of C++ and Ada. I believe this could only have been achieved if we had started with a fully documented high level design. Again, this may simply be a different way of working, here at ACT, we really aren't very good at roaming around code and figuring out what is going on, we depend on a very structured design approach, so there is undoubtedly a bit of a culture clash :-) :-) -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* Re: GNAT versions ( was :Ada compiler for PC?) 1999-05-06 0:00 ` Robert Dewar @ 1999-05-06 0:00 ` Andi Kleen 1999-05-06 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-05-07 0:00 ` Mike Stump 1 sibling, 1 reply; 78+ messages in thread From: Andi Kleen @ 1999-05-06 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-dejanews.com> writes: > I did the design and implementation of the exception handling in > Ada, so I am pretty familiar with what was and was not done. Yes > there were early discussions about trying to deal with commonality > between the languages, but unfortunately these did not result in > a common facility. I tried to understand what had been done for > C++ but failed. Others here at ACT are still trying to do more > merging here, but it is not easy. I found no high level interface > oriented description of the mechanism used for C++. Perhaps I > simply did not look hard enough, or just did not know how to read > the code correctly. I find the back end of GCC rather difficult > to navigate (and indeed in a recent email Per Bothner (hope I > remembered the spelling right) claimed that the entire gcc compiler > was ill-documented so why single out the exception handling). I > find that position FAR too pessimistic, and indeed in general the > gcc backend is documented a lot better than many proprietary > compilers with which I am familiar, but in this particular case, > we have not yet achieved the ideal of merging the exception handling > of C++ and Ada. I believe this could only have been achieved if we > had started with a fully documented high level design. As a first impression the GNAT 3.11 "zero-cost" EH implementation seems to usually generate smaller unwind tables than the egcs C++ EH implementation (IMNSHO that is the main problem with the current egcs EH - too much executable bloat) It would be great if the best points of both could be merged. -Andi ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* Re: GNAT versions ( was :Ada compiler for PC?) 1999-05-06 0:00 ` Andi Kleen @ 1999-05-06 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 0 siblings, 0 replies; 78+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 1999-05-06 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <m3so9aci9g.fsf@fred.muc.de>, Andi Kleen <ak@muc.de> wrote: > As a first impression the GNAT 3.11 "zero-cost" EH implementation > seems to usually generate smaller unwind tables than the egcs C++ > EH implementation > > (IMNSHO that is the main problem with the current egcs EH - too much > executable bloat) > > It would be great if the best points of both could be merged. > > -Andi I suspect this comparing apples and oranges, I am not sure what target you are on, but I think you may be comparing the stack unwinding tables of gcc with the static exception tables of GNAT, but maybe not. Certainly the approach used for finalization in GNAT will use less table space than the approach used in G++ but who knows if that is significant. As far as unwinding goes, on DEC Unix, we use the standard DEC Unix library calls for unwinding, and on SGI, we use the standard SGI routines. On the x86, we do prolog interpretation, which is very messy but is highly space efficient. On Solaris, we plan to use the standard gcc mechanism, but have not figured it out yet. -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* Re: GNAT versions ( was :Ada compiler for PC?) 1999-05-06 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-05-06 0:00 ` Andi Kleen @ 1999-05-07 0:00 ` Mike Stump 1999-05-07 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1 sibling, 1 reply; 78+ messages in thread From: Mike Stump @ 1999-05-07 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <7gs0d5$lvh$1@nnrp1.deja.com>, Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-dejanews.com> wrote: >I tried to understand what had been done for C++ but failed. Others >here at ACT are still trying to do more merging here, but it is not >easy. I'd be happy to answer any questions. >I found no high level interface oriented description of the >mechanism used for C++. >I believe this could only have been achieved if we had started with a >fully documented high level design. You make it sound like it can't be achieved. :-( Now, back to the first part... There are roughly three routines to call, one starts a region, one ends it, and the last to emit the region handlers. My hope was it would be easy to understand/use. /* Start an exception handling region. All instructions emitted after this point are considered to be part of the region until expand_eh_region_end () is invoked. */ extern void expand_eh_region_start PROTO((void)); /* End an exception handling region. The information about the region is found on the top of ehstack. HANDLER is either the cleanup for the exception region, or if we're marking the end of a try block, HANDLER is integer_zero_node. HANDLER will be transformed to rtl when expand_leftover_cleanups () is invoked. */ extern void expand_eh_region_end PROTO((tree)); /* Called from expand_exception_blocks and expand_end_catch_block to expand and pending handlers. */ extern void expand_leftover_cleanups PROTO((void)); The first two are meant to be fairly easy to use, maybe you can explain what you found hard to use about them, and I can clarify. The last is somewhat magical, and really should be buried deeper into the backend. Maybe if we can move the exception specifications into the backend, the reason for not having it in the backend can be removed. But, if one reads what java does: void emit_handlers () { if (catch_clauses) { rtx funcend = gen_label_rtx (); emit_jump (funcend); emit_insns (catch_clauses); expand_leftover_cleanups (); emit_label (funcend); } } (thanks Per), you can just plug this in (or move it into the backend, fix java to not include it), and just put in a call to emit_handlers. That is the $0.05 tour. :-) Now, admittedly, there are a few more concepts to understand, like the cleanups in TARGET_EXPR/expand_decl_cleanup _are_ run on an exception, for example, but not that many more. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* Re: GNAT versions ( was :Ada compiler for PC?) 1999-05-07 0:00 ` Mike Stump @ 1999-05-07 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 0 siblings, 0 replies; 78+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 1999-05-07 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <FBCAHD.Fqw@kithrup.com>, mrs@kithrup.com (Mike Stump) wrote: > In article <7gs0d5$lvh$1@nnrp1.deja.com>, > Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-dejanews.com> wrote: > > >I tried to understand what had been done for C++ but failed. Others > >here at ACT are still trying to do more merging here, but it is not > >easy. > > I'd be happy to answer any questions. What I would really look for here is a comprehensive document, or a pointer to documentation within the source, that would answer all the questions. The trouble is that it is quite clear that the current interface will not meet all the Ada requirements. The differences are partly at the detail level, partly more fundamental. But we need to be discussing changes to an existing interface document under some kind of configuration control. At least that's the way we work :-) -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* Re: GNAT versions ( was :Ada compiler for PC?) 1999-05-05 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-05-06 0:00 ` Mike Stump @ 1999-05-08 0:00 ` Pascal F. Martin 1999-05-08 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1 sibling, 1 reply; 78+ messages in thread From: Pascal F. Martin @ 1999-05-08 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <7gpsrd$qc7$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-dejanews.com> writes: > In article <FB8DLq.BH6@kithrup.com>, > mrs@kithrup.com (Mike Stump) wrote: > > That certainly seems backwards to me, for me the sequence of > software production goes like: > > design and document the interfaces > refine the interfaces till they are correct > then implement > This is an idealistic view, as proving an interface correct is not (yet) exact science. The mechanical and engineering science use a different sequence which I like very much, as it copes with real life problems: design and document the interfaces refine the interfaces till they are accepted by peers implement (this may infere a few changes in the interfaces) document the interfaces "as built". -- Pascal F. Martin. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* Re: GNAT versions ( was :Ada compiler for PC?) 1999-05-08 0:00 ` Pascal F. Martin @ 1999-05-08 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-05-08 0:00 ` bill 0 siblings, 1 reply; 78+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 1999-05-08 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <J3YY2.2192$2j3.3654@clnws01.we.mediaone.net>, pmartin@mail.earthlink.net (Pascal F. Martin) wrote: > This is an idealistic view, as proving an interface correct is not (yet) > exact science. The mechanical and engineering science use a different > sequence which I like very much, as it copes with real life problems: > > design and document the interfaces > refine the interfaces till they are accepted by peers > implement (this may infere a few changes in the interfaces) > document the interfaces "as built". Sure some iteration is required, but it can often be minimized, and you can come very close to the ideal. For example, for one project I did for Honeywell, a full real time executive, with thread support, synchronization primitives, integral debugger etc, was done by FIRST writing the user reference manual documenting the API in completely detail, THEN writing the executive (some 50,000 lines of assembly code). very few changes were required to the manual, almost all stylistic copy-editing stuff (they hired an English PhD to look over the manual and I had to let her make a *few* changes to avoid her completely destroying important technical stuff :-) But in any case our discussion here is over detail. Either approach is very far from the "implement first, document alter if at all" method :-) Robert Dewar -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* Re: GNAT versions ( was :Ada compiler for PC?) 1999-05-08 0:00 ` Robert Dewar @ 1999-05-08 0:00 ` bill 0 siblings, 0 replies; 78+ messages in thread From: bill @ 1999-05-08 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <7h2ig6$apr$1@nnrp1.deja.com>, Robert says... > >Sure some iteration is required, but it can often be minimized, >and you can come very close to the ideal. > >For example, for one project I did for Honeywell, a full real time >executive, with thread support, synchronization primitives, integral >debugger etc, was done by FIRST writing the user reference manual >documenting the API in completely detail, THEN writing the executive >(some 50,000 lines of assembly code). very few changes were required >to the manual, I also like the document first, write code second. But many time, after development starts, the API needs to be changed, becuase others wants it changed. it is not in your control. If you design your API one way, and no one complains then, but one week later, manager asks you to add something to the API or change it becuase they need some new functionality from your system, what are you to do? I found that when this happens, it is almost always becuase people did not spend too much time on specifications and on design stage. This happens also in places where little communication between engineers is the common culture in the work place. And in places where software managers have no clue about software, yet they are in charge of large software development projects. I've had a software manager who had no idea what a source control system is, and this was in a major US company. His idea of source control is to copy your files to separate hard drive. I've worked in places, where design changes were nade based on quick talk over the coffe station at work, or some remark made between 2 programmers walking across each other in the hallway. I've worked in places, where programmers do not talk to each others working on the same project. I've even worked on projects where programmers do not talk period. It is not surprising that changes in API are always occuring in these places. These places are some of the major companies in the US, well known names. It seems the most common way of writing code nowadays is this: -- Below is a simplified version of how software is written -- nowadays in some of the major companies in the US. To make every one think they are doing things right, quickly write some design thing. email it. then goto write_code. (of course no one will read and comment on the design send, since everyone else is busy debugging, but it is done so one can say they have done 'design'). write_code: write more code. see if that does what you think it needs to do if not then goto write_code else done: email the program to customer. cutomer emails back a bug complaint. goto write code. end if Bill ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* Re: GNAT versions ( was :Ada compiler for PC?) 1999-04-29 0:00 ` Per Bothner 1999-04-30 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-05-04 0:00 ` Mike Stump @ 1999-05-17 0:00 ` Richard Kenner 1999-05-19 0:00 ` Nick Roberts 2 siblings, 1 reply; 78+ messages in thread From: Richard Kenner @ 1999-05-17 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <7gbjhg$s98$1@rtl.cygnus.com> bothner@cygnus.com (Per Bothner) writes: >However, there was at least the perception that in a few case he made some >questionable decisions based on concerns about GNAT. For example, >C++ exception handling was delayed because Kenner had his own ideas >as to how it "ought" to be done. Well, since Mike Stump, the author of the delayed code in question, didn't see it as an issue of concerns with GNAT either then or now, I'm not sure what you mean by "perception". I want to add to some of the comments that Robert Dewar made later in this thread and to complete the history here. A long time ago (perhaps 1992), there was a set of meetings held at NYU on the topic of language-independent exception handling design. At those meetings were folks representing Ada, C++, and Modula. We spent a long time trying to solve the problem of how to implement a language- and machine-independent exception handling model, which was and is a very hard technical problem. These discussions continued on an EH list for a while after that. Subsequently, Robert wrote up a document that contained a draft specification for such a system, which was meant as a basis for implementation. Clearly, once implementation started, we would expect this specification to have to be updated as people learned more about the process. But nobody seemed to have time to do the implementation. Then an exception handling mechanism for GCC "suddenly" appeared *without* there being any revisions or details added to this document. One of the critical things I needed to know was whether or not the basic mechanism embodied in this implementation was or was not based on this document and, if it was, what modifications were made to those details in the process. This is a documentation issue and, as Mike correctly points out, was the main source of the dispute between he and I. I wanted to have the code documented, not just at the detailed level, but to have a specification of the basic strategy being used to implement machine- and language-independent exception processing. After a lot of back and forth (lasting at least a year, probably more), RMS and I agreed to install the code and received in return a promise for such documentation to be written. This was a number of years ago and, so far as I know, there has never been an update of the Robert's design document with the details of the particular implementation. With hindsight, clearly what happened should have been avoided. But, like Mike, I'm not sure *how* it could have been avoided. Perhaps we could have done something similar to what EGCS was originally and set up a parallel fork for the exception handling code where people could work on improving and finishing it, but it would stay out of the GCC releases until it was complete and documented. The problem with approach, of course, is that people would want to *use* the code (in both C++ and Ada) and those requirements would essentially cause this code fork to be its own "release" in much the same manner as EGCS was in its early days and divert the already-limited set of testers to testing *two* releases. How to deal with situations like this is, I believe, one of the more critical issues in open software development and I have no solutions to offer: history tells us what *doesn't* work, but I'm unaware of any solutions that do. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* Re: GNAT versions ( was :Ada compiler for PC?) 1999-05-17 0:00 ` Richard Kenner @ 1999-05-19 0:00 ` Nick Roberts 0 siblings, 0 replies; 78+ messages in thread From: Nick Roberts @ 1999-05-19 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Richard Kenner wrote ... [...] |A long time ago (perhaps 1992), I keep getting an image of Richard's post scrolling away from me in 3D, against a starfield background, accompanied by a rousing march. "A long time ago, in a galaxy far away ... there was a trade dispute ..." :-) Nick == Stay Cool, Hang Tough, Bath Often == ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* Re: GNAT versions ( was :Ada compiler for PC?) 1999-04-26 0:00 ` Per Bothner 1999-04-27 0:00 ` Stan Shebs 1999-04-27 0:00 ` Robert Dewar @ 1999-04-27 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 2 siblings, 0 replies; 78+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 1999-04-27 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <7g3klg$26p$1@rtl.cygnus.com>, bothner@cygnus.com (Per Bothner) wrote: > Well, I can't think of a single Gcc feature, major or > otherwise, that was in our standard customer release > before being in EGCS. There have been some minor examples (at least you have told customers this was the case), but in general, right, the Cygnus policy is the same as the ACT one, anything in a standard customer release is also made available publicly at essentially the same time (in the case of ACT, there is a small lag in time, simply because we prepare the customer release first, if we had more resources, we could probably eliminate even this couple of weeks lag). > Note: I am talking about the standard GNUPro product; > not contracted deliverables made to a specific customer. But actually this was the crux of the issue here in the discussion with regard to GNAT. Not the issue of standard releases, but the issue of special releases to specific customers to meet specific contract requirements for these customers. > (Obviously, if somebody pays for a new port to an > unannounced chip, we are not going to put into Egcs > before it is announced!) What I wonder about here is the secondary distribution. Yes, as Cygnus you can give the product back to the chip maker here, but presumably the chip maker cannot distribute this to any third party with any kind of ND restrictions. That seems an awkward situation. For example, suppose that Cygnus did a Merced port for Intel, then Intel could not give it to anyone else, e.g. to develop a Linux for it, with non-disclosure restrictions that would prevent them from distributing it. One of the interesting points of the GPL is that it allows ONE organization to do internal work in complete secrecy, unhampered by GPL restrictions of any kind, but this does not extend to two companies working together, because every time they send a copy between them, it must be sent in unrestricted manner. I should say that I have discussed this point explicitly with Richard Stallman, and he agrees with this assessment of both the intent and effect of the GPL. > I don't think it is proper for you to say what "Cygnus > feels". At the very least put in a "my guess is ...". This was not a guess, it was based on a direct conversation with Cygnus folks. Incidentally I did not intend it as a criticism. If indeed most changes to GDB are done by Cygnus it is perfectly reasonable for them to worry that opening things up can cause extra work without sufficient return. The reason EGCS works well on both sides is that although it is true that most contributions to EGCS have been from Cygnus, there are many important contributions from elsewhere. So far this is not true of GDB, but we hope it may be in the future, and Cygnus certainly shares this (again I am not guessing, this is based on direct interactions, but in any case it is an entirely reasonable position, and is what I would have guessed in any case). > -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* Re: GNAT versions ( was :Ada compiler for PC?) 1999-04-25 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-04-25 0:00 ` Maciej Stachowiak @ 1999-04-25 0:00 ` Russ Allbery 1999-04-25 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1 sibling, 1 reply; 78+ messages in thread From: Russ Allbery @ 1999-04-25 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In gnu.misc.discuss, Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-dejanews.com> writes: > One problem of course is that only ACT has access to the ACT regression > suite. This is fundamental, it is mostly proprietary code, that we > promise to guard very closely. Similarly, the DEC test suite is > proprietary code to which we have access, but most certainly not > distribution rights. This is actually a really interesting issue that faces any developer of a free software compiler. Fundamental to compiler development of any sort is extensive regression testing, since a bug in a compiler will not only cause the compiler to not function correctly, but may also propagate breakage to everything compiled with the compiler, sometimes in extremely subtle ways that are damnably hard to detect. Extensive testing is considerably more important even than for other critical system utilities, and the need is probably equalled only by system kernels and libc. One of the best sorts of tests are things that used to be broken and are now fixed, that can be tested with every change to make sure they don't break again. (That's the definition of regression testing, in fact.) But what a compiler breaks on is certain code constructs, and other people's code is quite frequently not under the same license as the compiler itself. Therefore, if one actually uses one of the best sources of a test suite for a compiler, one ends up with a test suite that's covered under a bunch of conflicting licenses, including, quite frequently, proprietary ones (since people still do write a lot of proprietary software), and which almost certainly can't be easily distributed with the compiler. Companies are usually willing to let their internal code be used for testing the compiler that they actually use, but they're much less likely to be willing to have that code redistributed. But not adding a good test to the test suite due to licensing issues isn't very palatable either, nor is trying to rewrite the test. (In fact, the latter is often not even possible, since the obscure interactions that caused the bug in the first place usually disappear in a rewrite.) It makes a great deal of sense for there to be a "traditional" software support company associated with a free compiler effort that can take bug reports and test code from companies and other sources and perform regression tests against the free source base using that information, even if the test code can't be redistributed. -- Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) <URL:http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* Re: GNAT versions ( was :Ada compiler for PC?) 1999-04-25 0:00 ` Russ Allbery @ 1999-04-25 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 0 siblings, 0 replies; 78+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 1999-04-25 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <yl676lnovr.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>, Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> wrote: > In gnu.misc.discuss, Robert Dewar > <robert_dewar@my-dejanews.com> writes: <<many other good points snipped>> > It makes a great deal of sense for there to be a > "traditional" software support company associated with a > free compiler effort that can take bug reports and test > code from companies and other sources and perform > regression tests against the free source base using that > information, even if the test code can't be > redistributed. We certainly regard our test suite (now many millions of lines long spreading out over nearly 6000 directories, and close to a hundred thousand files) as a critical aid in our quality control procedures. Other companies undoubtedly have their own suites. Often this code is very fiercely protected, and we routinely sign non-disclosure agreements to get it. A useful, but massive task, would be to sanitize this test suite, by extracting the tests that are not subject to non-disclosure (since this is the default for us, it would take a large effort of contacting users etc), and creating sanitized versions of bugs in proprietary code. That could result in a useful freely available test. But I would estimate that several person years of work is required for this, and we just don't have the resources. One very important point for us is that we also have access to the Digital test suite from their extensively used Ada 83 product (this includes basically all the bugs that DEC ever ran into plus a number of really diabolical complex purpose written tests [the ACT test suite also includes hundreds of our own purpose-written tests, generally when we add a new feature, we add a test to our test suite]. In practice we find that the trio working together (the ACVC tests, the ACT tests, and the DEC test suite) are complementary, very often a new version of the compiler passes 2 out of 3 of these tests! We actually use the ACT regression suite very aggressively. Our internal procedures allow anyone to checkin modifications to one of the standard GNAT files, but *only* after running the regression suite. This suite has been run nearly ten thousand times in the last couple of years, and we have found this a very effective way of controlling development and making sure that regressions are not introduced. Then each night we build on all targets, and run the ACVC and DEC test suites. In any case we are ahead in the Ada community in having at least one freely available comprehensive test suite, the ACVC tests, and anyone for example doing their own fiddling with GNAT should most CERTAINLY be running the ACVC tests as one good step to making sure they are not introducing regressions. Robert Dewar Ada Core Technologies -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* Re: GNAT versions ( was :Ada compiler for PC?) [not found] ` <7fqld6$htu$1@nnrp1.dej <1999Apr23.172908.1@eisner> [not found] ` <7frqmj$bg6$1@mulga.cs.mu.oz.au> @ 1999-04-24 0:00 ` Fergus Henderson 1 sibling, 0 replies; 78+ messages in thread From: Fergus Henderson @ 1999-04-24 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) kilgallen@eisner.decus.org (Larry Kilgallen) writes: >It seems unlikely that someone with "a specific problem" >would be at a point in their own work cycle where they >have time to get into the software distribution business. These days we have an amazing invention called "The Internet" which makes distributing software very easy. -- Fergus Henderson <fjh@cs.mu.oz.au> | "I have always known that the pursuit WWW: <http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~fjh> | of excellence is a lethal habit" PGP: finger fjh@128.250.37.3 | -- the last words of T. S. Garp. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* Re: GNAT versions ( was :Ada compiler for PC?) 1999-04-22 0:00 ` Russell Senior 1999-04-23 0:00 ` Samuel Mize @ 1999-04-23 0:00 ` bourguet 1999-04-25 0:00 ` Geoffrey KEATING 1999-04-23 0:00 ` GNAT versions ( was :Ada compiler for PC?) Pascal Obry 2 siblings, 1 reply; 78+ messages in thread From: bourguet @ 1999-04-23 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <86lnfjx5rx.fsf@coulee.tdb.com>, Russell Senior <seniorr@teleport.com> wrote: > >>>>> "Robert" == Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-dejanews.com> writes: > > Robert> Indeed the whole point of the GPL is to avoid the > Robert> disadvantages of the proprietary model of software. > > Perhaps you could explain a little bit more about how it is in the Ada > Community's interest to not share the GPL'd commercial and wavefront > releases of GNAT. Not being a member of that community, it is the > part I don't understand. First wavefront version of gnat are not release but more like snapshot, and commercial release usually are quickly followed by a public one of the same code. About the public availability you may have another point of view than the one of Robert Dewar, but his POV is quite argumented, consistant and in nothing contrary to the GPL. The beta testers of emacs or gcc are perhaps not the customers of a compagny, but snapshot and prerelease of these programs are not very much more easily available than wavefront or commercial release of gnats, and public release no less distant that public release of gnat. -- Jean-Marc PS: Followup set to gnu.misc.discuss, this subject has been too much handled on cla and nothing new will probably come out this time. -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* Re: GNAT versions ( was :Ada compiler for PC?) 1999-04-23 0:00 ` bourguet @ 1999-04-25 0:00 ` Geoffrey KEATING 1999-04-25 0:00 ` Robert Dewar ` (2 more replies) 0 siblings, 3 replies; 78+ messages in thread From: Geoffrey KEATING @ 1999-04-25 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) bourguet@my-dejanews.com writes: > First wavefront version of gnat are not release but more like snapshot, > and commercial release usually are quickly followed by a public one of the > same code. > > About the public availability you may have another point of view than the > one of Robert Dewar, but his POV is quite argumented, consistant and in > nothing contrary to the GPL. The beta testers of emacs or gcc are perhaps > not the customers of a compagny, but snapshot and prerelease of these > programs are not very much more easily available than wavefront or commercial > release of gnats, and public release no less distant that public release of > gnat. You mean, the wavefront and/or commercial releases of gnats are available by anonymous FTP, and the current tree can be obtained by anonymous CVS? I'd be interested in more details, if so. This is certainly true for egcs, and IIRC even for gcc there is anonymous CVS access. [Before anyone asks, you can get egcs snapshots from egcs.cygnus.com, or any of its mirrors. Releases are put in the same place.] -- Geoff Keating <Geoff.Keating@anu.edu.au> ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* Re: GNAT versions ( was :Ada compiler for PC?) 1999-04-25 0:00 ` Geoffrey KEATING @ 1999-04-25 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-04-25 0:00 ` EGCS & GNAT Was (Re: GNAT versions) David Starner 1999-04-26 0:00 ` GNAT versions ( was :Ada compiler for PC?) Geoffrey KEATING 1999-04-26 0:00 ` bourguet [not found] ` <7fua23$fgh$1@nnrp1 <37234dca.a509d0d9@aasaa.ofe.org> 2 siblings, 2 replies; 78+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 1999-04-25 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <t8zp3xy1w7.fsf@discus.anu.edu.au>, Geoffrey KEATING <geoffk@discus.anu.edu.au> wrote: > This is certainly true for egcs, and IIRC even for gcc > there is anonymous CVS access. But surely you do not think that the current EGCS snapshot does not represent the internal Cygnus development tree (actually you may think this, I quite often run into people under this remarkable illusion! -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* Re: EGCS & GNAT Was (Re: GNAT versions) 1999-04-25 0:00 ` Robert Dewar @ 1999-04-25 0:00 ` David Starner 1999-04-26 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-04-26 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-04-26 0:00 ` GNAT versions ( was :Ada compiler for PC?) Geoffrey KEATING 1 sibling, 2 replies; 78+ messages in thread From: David Starner @ 1999-04-25 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Robert Dewar wrote: > > In article <t8zp3xy1w7.fsf@discus.anu.edu.au>, > Geoffrey KEATING <geoffk@discus.anu.edu.au> wrote: > > This is certainly true for egcs, and IIRC even for gcc > > there is anonymous CVS access. > > But surely you do not think that the current EGCS snapshot > does not represent the internal Cygnus development tree > (actually you may think this, I quite often run into people > under this remarkable illusion! But the internal Cygnus development tree doesn't represent the EGCS development tree either. A great deal of development goes on in the EGCS developement tree, and the internal Cygnus development tree contains some stuff that is not suited for the EGCS tree (for example: a enviroment variable that the compiler reads for command line options; they deem this too error prone for EGCS). g77, if I understand correctly, is completely developed in the outside tree. I still don't understand the great worries about GNAT beta versions getting distributed. I don't see problems arising from the EGCS snapshots being distributed; if you download a snapshot you know what you're getting. I don't see how big problems would arise from releasing GNAT wavefront versions. It certainly doesn't compel ACT to distribute beta version, though. While it's on topic, since EGCS is now the official GCC tree, when will there be a version of GNAT that builds on EGCS? It would be much more convientent for those of use running EGCS. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* Re: EGCS & GNAT Was (Re: GNAT versions) 1999-04-25 0:00 ` EGCS & GNAT Was (Re: GNAT versions) David Starner @ 1999-04-26 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-04-26 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1 sibling, 0 replies; 78+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 1999-04-26 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <37234DCA.A509D0D9@aasaa.ofe.org>, David Starner <dstarner98@aasaa.ofe.org> wrote: > I don't see problems arising from the EGCS > snapshots being distributed; if you download a snapshot > you know what you're getting. Yes, but as our discussion has shown the EGCS snapshots are not equivalent to our wavefronts. The GCC equivalent of our wavefronts would be day by day drops of the internal Cygnus development tree, something that Cygnus does not do (for reasons we understand very well!) As I said in an earlier message, if there was something equivalent to EGCS for GNAT, that would be a quite different situation but so far there is not, although perhaps the GNAT/Linux project will develop in that direction! -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* Re: EGCS & GNAT Was (Re: GNAT versions) 1999-04-25 0:00 ` EGCS & GNAT Was (Re: GNAT versions) David Starner 1999-04-26 0:00 ` Robert Dewar @ 1999-04-26 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1 sibling, 0 replies; 78+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 1999-04-26 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <37234DCA.A509D0D9@aasaa.ofe.org>, David Starner <dstarner98@aasaa.ofe.org> wrote: > While it's on topic, since EGCS is now the official GCC > tree, when will there be a version of GNAT that builds on > EGCS? It would be much more convientent for those of use > running EGCS. 3.12 technology is based on gcc 2.8.1 with a patch set, as in previous releases. Right now, a number of fixes and improvements are required to EGCS to get it up to the level required by our regression and QA testing (remember that, unlike the GCC 2.8.1 tree, changes have not been verified against our test suite, and there are definitely some errors). It is certainly our intention to migrate in the EGCS direction, but it may take a while to complete this change over, since clearly we cannot release an EGCS based version that has significant regressions. Just getting GNAT to run on EGCS is not that difficult. Getting it to run perfectly, or at least as perfectly as on GCC 2.8.1 will take some effort. How much we don't know for sure yet. If you are happy with a compiler that mostly works even if it does not pass all our tests, then the patches for running version 3.11p of GNAT under EGCS have already been developed and posted by volunteers (in fact the first set of such patches appeared about 24 hours after the initial drop of 3.11p). Robert Dewar Ada Core Technologies -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* Re: GNAT versions ( was :Ada compiler for PC?) 1999-04-25 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-04-25 0:00 ` EGCS & GNAT Was (Re: GNAT versions) David Starner @ 1999-04-26 0:00 ` Geoffrey KEATING 1 sibling, 0 replies; 78+ messages in thread From: Geoffrey KEATING @ 1999-04-26 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-dejanews.com> writes: > In article <t8zp3xy1w7.fsf@discus.anu.edu.au>, > Geoffrey KEATING <geoffk@discus.anu.edu.au> wrote: > > This is certainly true for egcs, and IIRC even for gcc > > there is anonymous CVS access. > > But surely you do not think that the current EGCS snapshot > does not represent the internal Cygnus development tree > (actually you may think this, I quite often run into people > under this remarkable illusion! These people are no doubt confused; possibly they think that 'EGCS' is the same thing as 'Cygnus GCC'. These are usually the same people that think that Cygnus runs the egcs project. The current egcs snapshot doesn't represent _my_ internal development tree, either, although I note that I'm down to only about four patches' difference between my tree and current snapshots. Similarly, Cygnus is continually trying to reduce the difference between the egcs tree and their version, if only because it makes it easier to update their tree to the current egcs one. -- Geoff Keating <Geoff.Keating@anu.edu.au> ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* Re: GNAT versions ( was :Ada compiler for PC?) 1999-04-25 0:00 ` Geoffrey KEATING 1999-04-25 0:00 ` Robert Dewar @ 1999-04-26 0:00 ` bourguet [not found] ` <7fua23$fgh$1@nnrp1 <37234dca.a509d0d9@aasaa.ofe.org> 2 siblings, 0 replies; 78+ messages in thread From: bourguet @ 1999-04-26 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <t8zp3xy1w7.fsf@discus.anu.edu.au>, Geoffrey KEATING <geoffk@discus.anu.edu.au> wrote: > bourguet@my-dejanews.com writes: [...] > You mean, the wavefront and/or commercial releases of gnats are > available by anonymous FTP, and the current tree can be obtained by > anonymous CVS? I'd be interested in more details, if so. No. As far as I know wavefront version are not even available to customer who don't have a need for (I.E. are blocked by a bug which does not have a raisonable work around). > This is certainly true for egcs, and IIRC even for gcc there is > anonymous CVS access. > > [Before anyone asks, you can get egcs snapshots from egcs.cygnus.com, > or any of its mirrors. Releases are put in the same place.] I've already been to egc.cygnus.com and saw announce like "cygnus donates code to support processor X" "cygnus donates code to perform optimization Y". Do you thinks these code are not in a development tree not publicly accessible and have not been tested, perhaps by customers of cygnus? I see no raisons to thinks this; more I see raisons for cygnus having an internal development tree and giving sample of what is in this development tree to customers. -- Jean-Marc -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <7fua23$fgh$1@nnrp1 <37234dca.a509d0d9@aasaa.ofe.org>]
* Re: EGCS & GNAT Was (Re: GNAT versions) [not found] ` <7fua23$fgh$1@nnrp1 <37234dca.a509d0d9@aasaa.ofe.org> @ 1999-04-26 0:00 ` Larry Kilgallen 0 siblings, 0 replies; 78+ messages in thread From: Larry Kilgallen @ 1999-04-26 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Reply-To: Kilgallen@eisner.decus.org.nospam Organization: LJK Software Lines: 16 In article <37234DCA.A509D0D9@aasaa.ofe.org>, David Starner <dstarner98@aasaa.ofe.org> writes: > I still don't understand the great worries about GNAT beta versions > getting distributed. Neither do I, but people keep bringing this up in comp.lang.ada as a political football, without anyone coming up with a single example where there has been a problem with the current system of releasing only software that has received the fuller testing. As an Ada fan, I would much prefer the versions of Ada available (from all sources) were as defect-free as possible, so those who are not already firmly in the Ada camp will not get disuaded by encountering defects. Larry Kilgallen ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* Re: GNAT versions ( was :Ada compiler for PC?) 1999-04-22 0:00 ` Russell Senior 1999-04-23 0:00 ` Samuel Mize 1999-04-23 0:00 ` bourguet @ 1999-04-23 0:00 ` Pascal Obry 1999-04-23 0:00 ` dennison 1999-04-24 0:00 ` Christopher Browne 2 siblings, 2 replies; 78+ messages in thread From: Pascal Obry @ 1999-04-23 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) [-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --] [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 607 bytes --] Russell Senior a �crit dans le message <86lnfjx5rx.fsf@coulee.tdb.com>... >>>>>> "Robert" == Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-dejanews.com> writes: > >Robert> Indeed the whole point of the GPL is to avoid the >Robert> disadvantages of the proprietary model of software. > >Perhaps you could explain a little bit more about how it is in the Ada >Community's interest to not share the GPL'd commercial and wavefront >releases of GNAT. Not being a member of that community, it is the >part I don't understand. > That's not a problem since members of the Ada community understand that part :-) Pascal. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* Re: GNAT versions ( was :Ada compiler for PC?) 1999-04-23 0:00 ` GNAT versions ( was :Ada compiler for PC?) Pascal Obry @ 1999-04-23 0:00 ` dennison 1999-04-23 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-04-24 0:00 ` Christopher Browne 1 sibling, 1 reply; 78+ messages in thread From: dennison @ 1999-04-23 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) [-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --] [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1302 bytes --] In article <7fp5na$loj$1@cf01.edf.fr>, "Pascal Obry" <p.obry@der.edf.fr> wrote: > > Russell Senior a �crit dans le message <86lnfjx5rx.fsf@coulee.tdb.com>... > >>>>>> "Robert" == Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-dejanews.com> writes: > > > >Robert> Indeed the whole point of the GPL is to avoid the > >Robert> disadvantages of the proprietary model of software. > > > >Perhaps you could explain a little bit more about how it is in the Ada > >Community's interest to not share the GPL'd commercial and wavefront > >releases of GNAT. Not being a member of that community, it is the > >part I don't understand. > > > > That's not a problem since members of the Ada community understand > that part :-) Well, perhaps some of us do... But my personal interest or my personal agreement as a "member of the community" isn't the issue. The issue is if this is all kosher by the GPL, which it pretty clearly is. Given several cases of beer and an evening to blow, I'm sure we could all as a group come up with dozens of "better" development models for Gnat. But who really cares? ACT certainly doesn't have to, and I don't even think I do... -- T.E.D. -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* Re: GNAT versions ( was :Ada compiler for PC?) 1999-04-23 0:00 ` dennison @ 1999-04-23 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 0 siblings, 0 replies; 78+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 1999-04-23 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <7fqb0h$7r7$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, dennison@telepath.com wrote: > Given several cases of beer and an evening to blow, I'm > sure we could all as a group come up with dozens of > "better" development models for Gnat. But who > really cares? ACT certainly doesn't have to, and I don't > even think I do... How about using that case of beer and the evening to discuss how to persuade others in the Ada vendor community (compilers .. Greenhills, Rational, Aonix, OCS ... etc tools, Claw, etc etc) to look more closely at the free softwaremodel for their products. I quite understand that people get exercised over the issue of whether they see the latest feature in GNAT in June as opposed to July, but what would really help the Ada community is if more Ada suppliers would climb on the open software bandwagon, preferably using proper free software licenses! It's good that GNAT has persuaded some more free releases (e.g. the crippled versions of the Aonix compiler, and CLAW), but it would be *so* much better if tools like this could genuinely be made openly available without any limitations or "demo" versions. Don't assume it can't happen. The open source movement is gathering a lot of steam. When we started out on this track 6 years ago, we were pioneering, now we are in the mainstream! Robert Dewar Ada Core Technologies -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* Re: GNAT versions ( was :Ada compiler for PC?) 1999-04-23 0:00 ` GNAT versions ( was :Ada compiler for PC?) Pascal Obry 1999-04-23 0:00 ` dennison @ 1999-04-24 0:00 ` Christopher Browne 1 sibling, 0 replies; 78+ messages in thread From: Christopher Browne @ 1999-04-24 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) On Fri, 23 Apr 1999 08:58:44 +0200, Pascal Obry <p.obry@der.edf.fr> wrote: > >Russell Senior a �crit dans le message <86lnfjx5rx.fsf@coulee.tdb.com>... >>>>>>> "Robert" == Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-dejanews.com> writes: >> >>Robert> Indeed the whole point of the GPL is to avoid the >>Robert> disadvantages of the proprietary model of software. >> >>Perhaps you could explain a little bit more about how it is in the Ada >>Community's interest to not share the GPL'd commercial and wavefront >>releases of GNAT. Not being a member of that community, it is the >>part I don't understand. > >That's not a problem since members of the Ada community understand >that part :-) Hmm... Sounds to me like a situation where there start to be entertaining definitions of what "The Ada community" is. "A *true* member of the Ada community is one that properly understands the release strategy and agrees with it. Anyone who doesn't understand obviously isn't part of the community..." -- Fatal Error: Found [MS-Windows] System -> Repartitioning Disk for Linux... (By cbbrowne@hex.net, Christopher Browne) cbbrowne@ntlug.org- <http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/languages.html> ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* Re: GNAT versions ( was :Ada compiler for PC?) 1999-04-23 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-04-22 0:00 ` Russell Senior @ 1999-04-24 0:00 ` Ronald Cole 1 sibling, 0 replies; 78+ messages in thread From: Ronald Cole @ 1999-04-24 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-dejanews.com> writes: > In article <371F8B02.9BD7045F@spam.com>, > Glen <SpamSpam@spam.com> wrote: > > Could someone on GNU.MISC.DISCUSS please read the > > threads, and pick up, this is the reality of commercial > > development of GPL - proprietory versions !! > > The GPL and the notion of proprietary software are > fundamentally incompatible. No versions of GNAT for > example are, or could be proprietary. > > You must be using proprietary in an exceedingly unusual > sense, different from how most people use the term. > > Indeed the whole point of the GPL is to avoid the > disadvantages of the proprietary model of software. Glen, apparently, lacks the proper vocabulary to engage in a proper discussion. Perhaps I can help here... The correct word is "hoarding". And, yes, the GPL allows hoarding. Stallman doesn't think that if you distribute GPL'd source code to person A that you must also distribute it to person B if he asks. Remember the joke about the difference between a slut and a bitch? A slut puts out for everyone and a bitch puts out for everyone but you. The GPL allows one to be a bitch. -- Forte International, P.O. Box 1412, Ridgecrest, CA 93556-1412 Ronald Cole <ronald@forte-intl.com> Phone: (760) 499-9142 President, CEO Fax: (760) 499-9152 My PGP fingerprint: 15 6E C7 91 5F AF 17 C4 24 93 CB 6B EB 38 B5 E5 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* Re: GNAT versions ( was :Ada compiler for PC?) 1999-04-21 0:00 ` root 1999-04-22 0:00 ` Robert Dewar @ 1999-04-22 0:00 ` dennison 1 sibling, 0 replies; 78+ messages in thread From: dennison @ 1999-04-22 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <371E2F2A.662C8F4F@spam.com>, root <roffey@shagbadger.demon.co.uk> wrote: > I do sense that I am the ONLY C.L.A reader who disagrees with ACT policy > of GPL versioning and release, so I shall cease in picking up when > Robert > posts regards this subject ( even when he offers www.opensource.com > instead of www.gnu.org for a definition of "free software". ) Actually, you are not. But it is generally accepted that they are well within their rights to be doing it the way they are doing it. One might try to *convince* them to change, but ACT has made their position on the matter quite clear. It has been discussed to death already, and ACT remains unswayed by the argments given. Unless there's some new compelling rationale that no-one has yet thought of, it doesn't seem to be a productive discussion to be engaging in. -- T.E.D. -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* Re: GNAT versions ( was :Ada compiler for PC?) 1999-04-21 0:00 ` Glen 1999-04-21 0:00 ` Larry Kilgallen @ 1999-04-21 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1 sibling, 0 replies; 78+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 1999-04-21 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <371DF7CE.C7D7C1F@spam.com>, spamwithchipsplease@spam.com wrote: > And just what affect does releasing "Betas" to the public > have on ACTs quality control ? You are confused, we are not talking beta releases here but current development versions, which are often quite unstable, and definitely unsuitable for release to anyone! > And just how long where glib2 public users kept waiting > for the "public" release of a GPL work available to > paying support customers ? glitch free ? We released this at the appropriate time in our release cycle. Actually the procedures required for modifying the sources were published on chat@gnat.com long before the release. > You didn't decide to use the GPL, the code came with the > GPL, Wrong, we wrote the Ada compiler, and we most definitely decided to use the GPL. It indeed was me personally who encouraged Chris to make this requirement! Of course the decision to use gcc for the backend meant that it was natural in any case to GPL the code, but the government contract did not require the use of gcc, that was a decision that I and my colleages at NYU took. So, you are quite wrong here, we *did* decide to use the GPL, and the code for the GNAT front end did not "come" with the GPL. Indeed the starting point for the code, Ada/Ed, was most definitely NOT GPL'ed! > How does it limit my use, except for trying to make it > proprietary ? It actually has quite a lot of restrictions, you should read it carefully. For example, if you manufacture a chip which you are keeping secret for now, e.g. the Merced, and you then get a company to build you a gcc based compiler, then under the terms of the GPL, you cannot distribute this to your customers under non-disclosure agreements. It's actually quite interesting. One company can develop a version of GNAT or GCC under wraps without violating the GPL, but there is no way at all for two or more companies to cooperate in such an endeavor. You also can't distribute modified versions except under restrictive conditions (source must be made available at reasonable cost). As I say, a limited license for use, that's what the GPL is, and in that respect it is like any other software license, it is just that its limitations are less severe! > Microsoft prohibit me asking a fellow for a copy of the > latest version of power point, the GPL allows anyone the > right to give me or anyone else the latest version. This > "not till its glitch free" is crap, Well fine, if you think it is crap, you are welcome to write your own software and do what you think proper with it. > you restrict a GPL work and all that might be learnt from > such betas and an open testing, bug reporting, knowledge > base, to protect your only asset, Nope, our procedures have nothing to do with asset protection, and everything to do with quality control. > which isn't the compiler because you don't own it Well actually ownership is shared. The original version of GNAT was owned by NYU, but under the terms of the government contract, NYU was required to assign the ownership to the FSF, so the basic compiler is owned by the FSF. Subsequent modifications to these parts of the system by ACT are also assigned to the FSF. Part of the runtime library is owned by Florida State University. This is the tasking runtime that is used in the current versions of GNAT. Other parts of the system are owned by ACT. Currently all parts of the system are under the GPL or the GMG (someone used these initials for the GNAT-modified-GPL, so I will adopt that usage). The FSF is committed by the assignment instrument to keep its part permanently GPL'ed. FSU and ACT could theoretically take the parts they have copyrighted and make new versions with different licesnses, but this is unlikely to happen since a) neither FSU nor ACT have any intention of deviating from the commitment to make everything released under the GPL or GMG. Unlike some other "free software" companies, ACT remains 100% committed to the free software notion. b) in any case the old versions are released under the GPL. Suppose that FSU suddenly decided that all future versions of the FSU components would be released under a restrictive license in an attempt to make money by selling them. Well in this case, ACT would simply take the last GPL'ed version and continue to develop it, ignoring the FSU work. I don't see that happening, as stated in a), but if it did it would not have any significant effect. By the way, from the above, I vaguely get the feeling that you think that releasing something under the GPL is somehow incompatible with ownership. That's not at all true from a legal point of view. Indeed the GPL is effective ONLY because the copyright holder intends to enforce their copyright rigorously. For example, if we found someone distributing GNAT in a manner incompatible with the GPL, then we would inform the FSF, and both the FSF and ACT would take action. First we would advise the party to cease and desist, and if we did not get satisfaction, we would file a breach of copyright suit, in the same way that Micrsoft would if their copyright were violated. Robert Dewar Ada Core Technologies -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada compiler for PC? 1999-04-17 0:00 Ada compiler for PC? Michael Feher 1999-04-17 0:00 ` Steven Hovater 1999-04-17 0:00 ` Tom Moran @ 1999-04-18 0:00 ` Wilhelm Spickermann [not found] ` <7fua23$fgh$1@nnrp1 <37234dca.a <1999Apr25.201259.1@eisner> 3 siblings, 0 replies; 78+ messages in thread From: Wilhelm Spickermann @ 1999-04-18 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Michael Feher wrote: > > Hello - > I know this is probably in a FAQ somewhere but here it goes... > > I am curious if there is a latest version of an Ada compiler > anywhere for download, but I more interested in it being for a Win98 > platform rather than the for-free aspect of it. If anyone has > any information for me, please respond to this newsgroup or > e-mail me. > > Thanks in advance - > Mike Hello - Have a look at http://stad.dsl.nl/~jvandyk/compilers.html Wilhelm Spickermann ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <7fua23$fgh$1@nnrp1 <37234dca.a <1999Apr25.201259.1@eisner>]
* Re: EGCS & GNAT Was (Re: GNAT versions) [not found] ` <7fua23$fgh$1@nnrp1 <37234dca.a <1999Apr25.201259.1@eisner> @ 1999-04-25 0:00 ` Leslie Mikesell 1999-04-26 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-04-26 0:00 ` Larry Kilgallen 0 siblings, 2 replies; 78+ messages in thread From: Leslie Mikesell @ 1999-04-25 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <1999Apr25.201259.1@eisner>, Larry Kilgallen <kilgallen@eisner.decus.org> wrote: >Reply-To: Kilgallen@eisner.decus.org.nospam >Organization: LJK Software >Lines: 16 > >In article <37234DCA.A509D0D9@aasaa.ofe.org>, David Starner <dstarner98@aasaa.ofe.org> writes: > >> I still don't understand the great worries about GNAT beta versions >> getting distributed. > >Neither do I, but people keep bringing this up in comp.lang.ada >as a political football, without anyone coming up with a single >example where there has been a problem with the current system >of releasing only software that has received the fuller testing. It is mostly bickering about the meaning of the GPL. As in how you can distribute even one bugfix copy of something with a license that ensures the right to source and the right to redistribute the source while witholding the source and insisting that the recipient not redistribute? One or the other doesn't make sense. >As an Ada fan, I would much prefer the versions of Ada available >(from all sources) were as defect-free as possible, so those who >are not already firmly in the Ada camp will not get disuaded by >encountering defects. If the old versions are perfect, why is there ongoing development? Les Mikesell les@mcs.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* Re: EGCS & GNAT Was (Re: GNAT versions) 1999-04-25 0:00 ` EGCS & GNAT Was (Re: GNAT versions) Leslie Mikesell @ 1999-04-26 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-04-26 0:00 ` Larry Kilgallen 1 sibling, 0 replies; 78+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 1999-04-26 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <7g0qj1$1td0$1@Mercury.mcs.net>, les@MCS.COM (Leslie Mikesell) wrote: > It is mostly bickering about the meaning of the GPL. As > in how you can distribute even one bugfix copy of > something with a license that ensures the right to source > and the right to redistribute the source while witholding > the source There is nothing in the GPL that ever *requires* *anyone* to distribute *anything* [other than the source for a program for which they distribute the objects] under *any* circumstances. Indeed a license which has any such requirements is not regarded as a legitimate free software license by the FSF (this is one of the contentions, the open source software folk to do not make this distinction) > and insisting that the recipient not redistribute? Any such insistence would be a clear violation of the GPL. For example, if you distributed GPL'ed software along with a non-disclosure agreement which restricted the further distribution, this would violate the GPL. You can explicitly ask people not to do it, explaining why you would prefer them not to redistribute, but that's only a request. At ACT, we don't even make such explicit requests. I suspect there *are* situations that are murky, for example surrounding the GCC work being done for Merced, but at ACT we never have any restrictive requirements, since, as noted above, these would clearly violate the GPL, and you are right, to have such restrictions would make no sense, which is why the GPL does not permit them. Robert Dewar Ada Core Technologies One or the other doesn't > make sense. > > >As an Ada fan, I would much prefer the versions of Ada available > >(from all sources) were as defect-free as possible, so those who > >are not already firmly in the Ada camp will not get disuaded by > >encountering defects. > > If the old versions are perfect, why is there ongoing development? > > Les Mikesell > les@mcs.com > -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* Re: EGCS & GNAT Was (Re: GNAT versions) 1999-04-25 0:00 ` EGCS & GNAT Was (Re: GNAT versions) Leslie Mikesell 1999-04-26 0:00 ` Robert Dewar @ 1999-04-26 0:00 ` Larry Kilgallen 1999-04-26 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1 sibling, 1 reply; 78+ messages in thread From: Larry Kilgallen @ 1999-04-26 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <7g0qj1$1td0$1@Mercury.mcs.net>, les@MCS.COM (Leslie Mikesell) writes: > In article <1999Apr25.201259.1@eisner>, > Larry Kilgallen <kilgallen@eisner.decus.org> wrote: >>As an Ada fan, I would much prefer the versions of Ada available >>(from all sources) were as defect-free as possible, so those who >>are not already firmly in the Ada camp will not get disuaded by >>encountering defects. > > If the old versions are perfect, why is there ongoing development? Of course some development is for new features. A compiler that complied perfectly with the RM could still be improved in optimization, quality of error messages, etc. There might be other defects going to the absolute correctness of the compiler. What there should never be in a released version is DEFECTS THAT WERE PREVIOUSLY FIXED. If you maintain that those internal "wavefront" releases cannot introduce a regression, might it be the case that ACT wastes time by running full regression tests before a release ? If so, then you can dismiss all the alleged "added value" Robert spoke about from their extensive test battery and just make your own changes to the compiler. In fact, if you are so upset about the way ACT behaves, you can set up a competing GNAT development effort. When the time comes, however, for me to pay money to a vendor for GNAT, and I have my choice between a vendor who tests and a vendor who doesn't, I have no question about which way my decision would go. Larry Kilgallen ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* Re: EGCS & GNAT Was (Re: GNAT versions) 1999-04-26 0:00 ` Larry Kilgallen @ 1999-04-26 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-05-04 0:00 ` Mike Stump 0 siblings, 1 reply; 78+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 1999-04-26 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <1999Apr26.074128.1@eisner>, > In article <7g0qj1$1td0$1@Mercury.mcs.net>, les@MCS.COM > (Leslie Mikesell) writes: > > If the old versions are perfect, why is there ongoing > >development? First: no one said that the old versions are perfect, even with respect to basic issues of conformance to the RM. Every version of GNAT so far has had bugs. No amount of testing can guarantee elimination of all bugs. But more to the point, the great majority of our ongoing development effort relates to new features, new tools, new packages, improved performance etc. Here is a brief excerpt from the features file for the forthcoming 3.12 releases. I will post the whole of this when we freeze the 3.12 sources, which has not happened yet. The compiler is now built with options -gnatpn instead of -gnata. This means that the front end of the compiler is considerably faster, up to 2-3 times faster in some cases. The cases where you will see the biggest speed up are in -gnatc compilations with no code generation, or if very large specs are with'ed from smaller units. If pragma Suppress is used in the gnat.adc file, this now properly suppresses exceptions in all files compiled in the presence of this gnat.adc file (Suppress pragmas in gnat.adc were previously ignored, which is in accordance with the RM, but certainly not what is wanted!) On Digital Unix 4.0D, the run time now takes advantage of the full range of priorities (0 .. 63). In -gnatc mode, an existing up to date ali file is no longer destroyed. In particular this means that the -gnatc -gnatt compilations used by ASIS do not destroy existing ali files. A new switch -gnaty activates style checking features in the compiler. These roughly correspond to the checking done by the special internal -gnatg flag, except that -gnaty allows extensive choice of which checks are to be performed, and also allows parametrization, e.g. of the indent level that is enforced. The handling of aggregates has been optimized in many cases, generating more efficient code and less memory usage. The binder now generates an Ada package as the main program by default instead of a C program. The generated files are called b~xxx.ads/adb, where xxx is the name of the main program. The -C switch for both gnatbind and gnatlink can be used to get the old behavior of generating the main program in C. This is just a small excerpt (the full features file entry for 3.12 is about 200 lines long and growing), but this should give you a feel for what continued development is about. Indeed our support activities these days are far less focussed on fixing bugs than helping people use Ada 95 and GNAT features successfully -- though of course the bug fixing activity is an important component still! Robert Dewar Ada Core Technologies -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* Re: EGCS & GNAT Was (Re: GNAT versions) 1999-04-26 0:00 ` Robert Dewar @ 1999-05-04 0:00 ` Mike Stump 1999-05-05 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 0 siblings, 1 reply; 78+ messages in thread From: Mike Stump @ 1999-05-04 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <7g2798$ntf$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, Robert Dewar <dewar@gnat.com> wrote: >In article <1999Apr26.074128.1@eisner>, >But more to the point, the great majority of our ongoing >development effort relates to new features, new tools, >new packages, improved performance etc. I have a question, will ACT be able to help with the egcs community, and help us integrate in teh Ada frontend into egcs, or do we have to go it alone? I personally would like to see Ada and Pascal integrated, tested (to some extent), and then egcs released as gcc 3.0. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
* Re: EGCS & GNAT Was (Re: GNAT versions) 1999-05-04 0:00 ` Mike Stump @ 1999-05-05 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 0 siblings, 0 replies; 78+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 1999-05-05 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <FB8F5o.DIH@kithrup.com>, mrs@kithrup.com (Mike Stump) wrote: > I have a question, will ACT be able to help with the egcs community, > and help us integrate in teh Ada frontend into egcs, or do we have to > go it alone? > > I personally would like to see Ada and Pascal integrated, tested (to > some extent), and then egcs released as gcc 3.0. Our priority is to get 3.12 out of the door first, 3.12 will still be gcc 2.8.1 based. FOllowing that we will start serious work on the EGCS integration. It is really something that ACT has to be involved with, because access to our regression suite is crucial for locating and dealing with EGCS regressions. We are setting up to do the full regression run now, and should have results soon. Certainly the 3.12 source base is the right one to include in the next EGCS release. -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 78+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~1999-05-19 0:00 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 78+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 1999-04-17 0:00 Ada compiler for PC? Michael Feher 1999-04-17 0:00 ` Steven Hovater 1999-04-17 0:00 ` Tom Moran 1999-04-18 0:00 ` Tom Moran 1999-04-20 0:00 ` Larry Kilgallen 1999-04-20 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-04-20 0:00 ` Tom Moran 1999-04-20 0:00 ` GNAT versions ( was :Ada compiler for PC?) SpamSpamSpam 1999-04-21 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-04-21 0:00 ` Glen 1999-04-21 0:00 ` Larry Kilgallen 1999-04-21 0:00 ` root 1999-04-22 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-04-22 0:00 ` Glen 1999-04-23 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-04-22 0:00 ` Russell Senior 1999-04-23 0:00 ` Samuel Mize 1999-04-23 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-04-23 0:00 ` Russell Senior 1999-04-23 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-04-23 0:00 ` Larry Kilgallen 1999-04-23 0:00 ` Samuel Mize 1999-04-25 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-04-24 0:00 ` Russ Allbery [not found] ` <7fqld6$htu$1@nnrp1.dej <1999Apr23.172908.1@eisner> [not found] ` <7frqmj$bg6$1@mulga.cs.mu.oz.au> 1999-04-24 0:00 ` Leslie Mikesell 1999-04-25 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-04-25 0:00 ` Maciej Stachowiak 1999-04-26 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-04-25 0:00 ` Maciej Stachowiak 1999-04-26 0:00 ` Per Bothner 1999-04-27 0:00 ` Stan Shebs 1999-04-27 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-04-27 0:00 ` Matthew Heaney 1999-04-28 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-04-28 0:00 ` David Kastrup 1999-04-28 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-04-29 0:00 ` Per Bothner 1999-04-30 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-05-04 0:00 ` Mike Stump 1999-05-05 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-05-06 0:00 ` Mike Stump 1999-05-06 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-05-06 0:00 ` Andi Kleen 1999-05-06 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-05-07 0:00 ` Mike Stump 1999-05-07 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-05-08 0:00 ` Pascal F. Martin 1999-05-08 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-05-08 0:00 ` bill 1999-05-17 0:00 ` Richard Kenner 1999-05-19 0:00 ` Nick Roberts 1999-04-27 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-04-25 0:00 ` Russ Allbery 1999-04-25 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-04-24 0:00 ` Fergus Henderson 1999-04-23 0:00 ` bourguet 1999-04-25 0:00 ` Geoffrey KEATING 1999-04-25 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-04-25 0:00 ` EGCS & GNAT Was (Re: GNAT versions) David Starner 1999-04-26 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-04-26 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-04-26 0:00 ` GNAT versions ( was :Ada compiler for PC?) Geoffrey KEATING 1999-04-26 0:00 ` bourguet [not found] ` <7fua23$fgh$1@nnrp1 <37234dca.a509d0d9@aasaa.ofe.org> 1999-04-26 0:00 ` EGCS & GNAT Was (Re: GNAT versions) Larry Kilgallen 1999-04-23 0:00 ` GNAT versions ( was :Ada compiler for PC?) Pascal Obry 1999-04-23 0:00 ` dennison 1999-04-23 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-04-24 0:00 ` Christopher Browne 1999-04-24 0:00 ` Ronald Cole 1999-04-22 0:00 ` dennison 1999-04-21 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-04-18 0:00 ` Ada compiler for PC? Wilhelm Spickermann [not found] ` <7fua23$fgh$1@nnrp1 <37234dca.a <1999Apr25.201259.1@eisner> 1999-04-25 0:00 ` EGCS & GNAT Was (Re: GNAT versions) Leslie Mikesell 1999-04-26 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-04-26 0:00 ` Larry Kilgallen 1999-04-26 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-05-04 0:00 ` Mike Stump 1999-05-05 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox