We already do "sort of" bootstrap libada by including some rts routines in the compiler.
Right, because those are explicitly listed in the compiler's Makefile and are part of the compiler. It would be possible to do so by really building libada three times, rather than by using parts of it both in the compiler and out of it. This is a cleanup, but would also allow comparison of the stage2/stage3 libada and expose possible miscompilations of the Ada front-end. I don't follow. We already see it if there's a miscompilation of the Ada front end. This is not in my list of things to do, by the way, but it is plain impossible with the old bootstrapping mechanism. I see it as "impossible with the old bootstrapping mechanism" as being for a good reason: it's not part of the compiler! I still fail to understand what it means to "bootstrap" anything other than a compiler: that word, to me, talks only about compilers. I still haven't heard any advantages of the new method, nor heard from anybody who's using it: most people I've seen who've weighed in on this discussion say "it doesn't matter to be: I'm using --disable-bootstrap". Can you say why this is a good thing? All I see are the disadvantages and I think I'm far from the only one.