From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,d6f7b92fd11ab291 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-07-16 11:04:34 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!arclight.uoregon.edu!news.tufts.edu!uunet!dca.uu.net!ash.uu.net!spool.news.uu.net!not-for-mail Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 14:04:33 -0400 From: Hyman Rosen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.5a) Gecko/20030611 Thunderbird/0.1a X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Crosspost: Help wanted from comp.compilers References: <1058275843.720814@master.nyc.kbcfp.com> <3F158832.1040206@attbi.com> In-Reply-To: <3F158832.1040206@attbi.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Organization: KBC Financial Products Message-ID: <1058378673.35463@master.nyc.kbcfp.com> Cache-Post-Path: master.nyc.kbcfp.com!unknown@nightcrawler.nyc.kbcfp.com X-Cache: nntpcache 3.0.1 (see http://www.nntpcache.org/) NNTP-Posting-Host: 204.253.250.10 X-Trace: 1058378673 13021 204.253.250.10 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:40349 Date: 2003-07-16T14:04:33-04:00 List-Id: Robert I. Eachus wrote: > If you understood Ada, you would understand that all of the "evidence" > you supplied confirmes what we have said. The issue going into the Ada > 9X process was that tools that tried to short-cut the Ada recompilation > rules were tried--and they were much worse than the problem. If you go back to my original post, you'll see that I wrote the implementations were horrible, leading to frequent unnecessary "recompile the world" scenarios How is that different from what you just said? Are you disagreeing with me that this was the case? > Do you really understand how the GNAT "source based" model works? Yes, in fact I do. > Everytime... As some of my evidence pointed out, the compilation systems which caused problems appeared to use compilation timestamps in their dependency checking, such that simply compiling a file caused the system to consider it to be newer than its dependents, and thus led to their recompilation in a days-long cascade. I don't know why they did it that way, but it certainly seems clear that they did. Certainly Ada doesn't require that this happen, which is why I spoke about horrible implementations, not horrible Ada. GNAT's way means that a file is recompiled only when the source modules it depends on change.