From: "David C. Hoos, Sr." <david.c.hoos.sr@ada95.com>
Subject: Re: GNAT 3.09 vs 3.10 on Linux
Date: 1997/09/22
Date: 1997-09-22T00:00:00+00:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <01bcc74e$3e6febb0$4e8371a5@dhoossr> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 01bcc6cc$c839f200$8dfd1fcc@p5120
To follow on my previous message:
Yes, and while I like fast compilation, too, I'll take slower compiles that
save debugging time
any day of the week. Besides, gnat's compilation model is so superior to
that of the Ada83
compilers with which we had to contend for so long, I don't complain at all
about compilation
speed.
Indidentally, the ability to eliminate recompilation for files which are
changed, but without
semantic modificaton -- e.g., adding comments -- by using the -m switch on
gnatmake is
really nice.
David C. Hoos, Sr.,
david.c.hoos.sr@ada95.com
bklungle <bklungle@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
<01bcc6cc$c839f200$8dfd1fcc@p5120>...
> I have been using 3.09 for the last 6 months on a system (about 22_000
> lines). Compiles on Verdix also. On the 12th of Sep, I downloaded 3.10
and
> installed it. The compilation phase took over twice as long as 3.09, and
it
> claimed there were circular package dependencies which no other compiler
> mentioned. I traced them by hand and it seems to think any body arrivable
> at more than once by tracing across specs and bodies is circular. This
> trace appears to be wrong. It refuses to continue. I reinstalled 3.09 and
> all is now well. Anybody seen similar??
>
> bob
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~1997-09-22 0:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
1997-09-21 0:00 GNAT 3.09 vs 3.10 on Linux bklungle
1997-09-22 0:00 ` David C. Hoos, Sr.
1997-09-22 0:00 ` David C. Hoos, Sr. [this message]
1997-09-23 0:00 ` bklungle
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox