The reasons for the upstream change are explained in the bug report I referenced: http://gcc.gnu.org/PR54040, and discussed in detail in the thread referenced there, viz.:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-11/msg01504.html Since the decision to use time_t instead of long has been discussed and approved upstream, I think you should take your objections there, i.e. by following up to that thread. I will not change s-osinte-posix.adb without approval from upstream but I will take your suggestion to change ada-kfreebsd.diff to use s-osinte-posix.adb, introducing time_t in the private part of s-osinte-kfreebsd-gnu.ads. -- Ludovic Brenta. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-gcc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/3c1bfa3e3388f2840b2d37563dec1...@ludovic-brenta.org
