Recompiling?

Recompiling?

[Harald Korneliussen]

I have played around with Ada for some time on Linux, but it seems
every time I upgrade the compiler I have to recompile (or possibly
re-link?) my programs.
It's a bit worrying that all my binaries stop working every time.
Anyone know why this happens, and if anything can be done about it?

Re: Recompiling?

[Ludovic Brenta]

Yes, every major release of GNAT, historically, breaks binary
compatibility with previous releases.  If your binary is linked with
one version of libgnat, upgrading libgnat breaks your program.

The issue is the same with C++ compilers, BTW.  For example, g++-3.3
and g++-3.4 are incompatible with each other.

The answer to this is to have a policy about when to switch compilers;
one version of the compiler must be designated as "the system
compiler" and used by all software that must be deployed together.

One example of such a policy for Ada and GNAT can be found here:

http://www.ada-france.org/debian/debian-ada-policy.html

Unfortunately, it looks like no other GNU/Linux distribution has a
policy for Ada (they normally have one for C++).

-- 
Ludovic Brenta.

Re: Recompiling?

[Dr. Adrian Wrigley]

On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 08:26:56 -0700, Ludovic Brenta wrote:

> Yes, every major release of GNAT, historically, breaks binary
> compatibility with previous releases.  If your binary is linked with
> one version of libgnat, upgrading libgnat breaks your program.
> 
> The issue is the same with C++ compilers, BTW.  For example, g++-3.3
> and g++-3.4 are incompatible with each other.
> 
> The answer to this is to have a policy about when to switch compilers;
> one version of the compiler must be designated as "the system
> compiler" and used by all software that must be deployed together.
> 
> One example of such a policy for Ada and GNAT can be found here:
> 
> http://www.ada-france.org/debian/debian-ada-policy.html
> 
> Unfortunately, it looks like no other GNU/Linux distribution has a
> policy for Ada (they normally have one for C++).

is the page correct in saying:
"ASIS, Glade and Florist are not currently available for GCC 3.4"
or is this now out of date?

OK.  I know this question gets asked a lot, but things seem to
be in continual flux:

Which free GNAT version would be best for meeting these criteria:
1) Linux, x86 architecture
2) with GLADE, PolyORB, ASIS, Florist
3) stable and robust for serious use

The answer seems to be to use GNAT 3.4, but you have to compile
everything yourself :(

What if I want x86_64 LP64 mode?  Is this straightforward?

Martin has some helpful information at:
http://ada.krischik.com/

but I'd much rather not spend the time and effort trying to
build a complete tool chain and libraries :(  Are we going
to see a suite of Debian packages in the near future?
I wish I had time to help out!
-- 
Adrian

Re: Recompiling?

[Ludovic Brenta]

Dr. Adrian Wrigley a écrit :
> On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 08:26:56 -0700, Ludovic Brenta wrote:
> > http://www.ada-france.org/debian/debian-ada-policy.html
>
> is the page correct in saying:
> "ASIS, Glade and Florist are not currently available for GCC 3.4"
> or is this now out of date?

The page is still correct, unfortunately.  I would have updated it if
events had warranted it.

> OK.  I know this question gets asked a lot, but things seem to
> be in continual flux:

No, it is not; but you are correct that the question is being asked
a lot.  Wishful thinking alone does not change the answer, however,
and only creates this illusion of "flux".

> Which free GNAT version would be best for meeting these criteria:
> 1) Linux, x86 architecture
> 2) with GLADE, PolyORB, ASIS, Florist
> 3) stable and robust for serious use
>
> The answer seems to be to use GNAT 3.4, but you have to compile
> everything yourself :(

No, the answer is GNAT 3.15p, and as a consequence you don't have to
compile anything :)  well, nobody has yet volunteered to package
PolyORB for Debian, or any other distribution.

> What if I want x86_64 LP64 mode?  Is this straightforward?

Then you are out of luck.  With GCC 3.4 or 4.0, you can have x86_64
LP64 mode but not ASIS or GLADE.

> Martin has some helpful information at:
> http://ada.krischik.com/

Yes.

> but I'd much rather not spend the time and effort trying to
> build a complete tool chain and libraries :(  Are we going
> to see a suite of Debian packages in the near future?
> I wish I had time to help out!

Sarge (the current Debian stable distribution) contains a full suite
of Ada packages, united together by the Debian Policy for Ada.  To my
knowledge there are 48 binary packages produced from 22 sources.  In
addition, the packages gnat-3.3 and gnat-3.4 are provided for
experimental use.

You can help out in several ways:

1) Try to persuade AdaCore to release a new "p" version of GNAT, based
   on a recent GCC, with ASIS and GLADE.  This would trigger a change
   in compilers in Debian (see section 2.8 of the Debian Policy for
   Ada).

2) Package more software for Debian.

3) Experiment with Martin Krischik's ASIS for GCC 4.0 and AdaCore's CVS
   repository for GLADE, and package them for Debian unstable.  Note
   that neither of these two projects have announced a "stable, robust
   for serious use" release, so this would be experimental.  But Debian
   "unstable" is appropriate for this.  Also, PolyORB might replace
   GLADE; you'd want to coordinate with the developers of PolyORB.

Note that etch has switched its default C and C++ compilers to GCC 4.0;
all C++ libraries are being recompiled with g++-4.0. Also, gnat-4.0 is
already in etch.  If and when ASIS and GLADE are provided for it, I
will
declare it the new default Ada compiler as well, and recompile all Ada
packages with it, even on the newly supported architecture, amd64.

-- 
Ludovic Brenta.

Re: Recompiling?

[Ludovic Brenta]

In case you don't know, "Etch" is the code-name for the next release
of Debian.  Etch is currently in testing.  There are several major
changes scheduled to take place before Etch becomes stable.  One such
change is the transition from gcc-3.3 to gcc-4.0 as the system C
compiler, and g++-3.3 to g++-4.0 as the system C++ compiler.  Another
transition is from glibc 2.3.2 to 2.3.5, and a third is from XFree86
4.3 to X.org 6.8.  The GCC transition is in progress now, the other
two will take place later.  Other scheduled transitions include KDE
(3.3 to 3.5) and GNOME (2.8 to 2.12).  So, Etch is currently very
much in a state of flux :)

As always with Debian, Etch will be released "when it is ready".

-- 
Ludovic Brenta.

Re: Recompiling?

[Alex R. Mosteo]

Ludovic Brenta wrote:

> You can help out in several ways:
> 
> 1) Try to persuade AdaCore to release a new "p" version of GNAT, based
>    on a recent GCC, with ASIS and GLADE.  This would trigger a change
>    in compilers in Debian (see section 2.8 of the Debian Policy for
>    Ada).

I think this may be inminent, being really a repackaging of the GAP 
releases. I remember that R. Dewar said in some other list that there's 
really no problem in people outside academic circles getting the GAP 
release. I've been looking for the exact post but I don't remember the 
mailing list and have not found it. If someone can point to it this 
would become clear and not a remembrance of mine (which may be imperfect :)

PolyORB, GCC, and Debian (was Re: Recompiling?)

[Ludovic Brenta]

(posted on behalf of Vadim Godunko)

Ludovic Brenta wrote:
> Also, PolyORB might replace GLADE; you'd want to coordinate with the
> developers of PolyORB.

Current development version of PolyORB require at least GCC 3.4.1. May
be it will be work with GCC 4.0.2. :(

The DSA personality (replacement of GLADE) may work with GCC 4.0.2 if
someone integrate several related patches from GCC HEAD. Even you are
use PolyORB's DSA personality you are need gnatdist program from GLADE
(current development version of GLADE have correct version of this
tool).

-- 
Vadim Godunko

Re: PolyORB, GCC, and Debian (was Re: Recompiling?)

[Ludovic Brenta]

Vadim Godunko <vgodunko@rost.ru> writes:
> Ludovic Brenta wrote:
>> Also, PolyORB might replace GLADE; you'd want to coordinate with the
>> developers of PolyORB.

Are you the Vadim Gudunko who is one of the authors of PolyORB?  Thank
you very much for your insight.  Is there a particular reason why you
mailed me privately rather than posting to comp.lang.ada?  May I send
your post myself?

> Current development version of PolyORB require at least GCC 3.4.1. May
> be it will be work with GCC 4.0.2. :(

This is bad news, but it seems that PolyORB 1.2r can be compiled with
GNAT Pro 3.16a1, so perhaps 3.15p may be able to compile it as well,
with some patching.

I don't think that a package maintainer would be very interested in
following the CVS HEAD of PolyORB, unless they were a PolyORB
developer themselves.

> The DSA personality (replacement of GLADE) may work with GCC 4.0.2 if
> someone integrate several related patches from GCC HEAD. Even you are
> use PolyORB's DSA personality you are need gnatdist program from GLADE
> (current development version of GLADE have correct version of this
> tool).

This sounds like a packager's nightmare.  Personally, I have rather
negative views on the way AdaCore does configuration management.  They
seem to go out of their way to make packager's jobs more difficult.

Note that the reason why I didn't package PolyORB is that it is a
generic middleware; I felt that I had to provide either all
personalities, or none at all. Providing no personality was easier :)
Also, I don't use it myself, and I would have done a lousy job of
supporting it for Debian users.

-- 
Ludovic Brenta.

Re: PolyORB, GCC, and Debian (was Re: Recompiling?)

[Ludovic Brenta]

(posted on behalf of Vadim Godunko)

Ludovic Brenta wrote:
> Vadim Godunko <vgodunko@rost.ru> writes:
>
>>Ludovic Brenta wrote:
>>
>>> Also, PolyORB might replace
>>> GLADE; you'd want to coordinate with the developers of PolyORB.
>
>
> Are you the Vadim Gudunko who is one of the authors of PolyORB?
Yes ;)

> Is there a particular reason why you
> mailed me privately rather than posting to comp.lang.ada?
I can't have write access to CLA :(

> May I send
> your post myself?
>
Yes, of course.

>
> This is bad news, but it seems that PolyORB 1.2r can be compiled with
> GNAT Pro 3.16a1, so perhaps 3.15p may be able to compile it as well,
> with some patching.
>
Current stable version of PolyORB is 1.3a. I think AdaCore release 1.3r
(publicy available version) in near future.

This version have many code cleanup and remove many GNAT 3.15p
workarounds. Thus it require GNAT Pro 5 or GCC 3.4.

> Note that the reason why I didn't package PolyORB is that it is a
> generic middleware; I felt that I had to provide either all
> personalities, or none at all. Providing no personality was easier :)
I think the more right way is provide only stable personalities, for
now
(PolyORB 1.3):

- application: CORBA MOMA
- protocol: GIOP SOAP
- services: Event IR Naming Notification Time

The DSA personality still unstable up to 1.4. More whan, it require
synchronization between it support inside GNAT compiler, GLADE's
gnatdist and PolyORB. :( This is too complex task for provide it
outside
of AdaCore products. :(

-- 
Vadim Godunko

Re: PolyORB, GCC, and Debian (was Re: Recompiling?)

[Jerome Hugues]

In article <1125476713.554815.176610@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Ludovic Brenta wrote:
> (posted on behalf of Vadim Godunko)

Hi Vadim ! ;)

>> This is bad news, but it seems that PolyORB 1.2r can be compiled with
>> GNAT Pro 3.16a1, so perhaps 3.15p may be able to compile it as well,
>> with some patching.
>>
> Current stable version of PolyORB is 1.3a. I think AdaCore release 1.3r
> (publicy available version) in near future.
> 
> This version have many code cleanup and remove many GNAT 3.15p
> workarounds. Thus it require GNAT Pro 5 or GCC 3.4.

3.15p workarounds, and bugs (e.g. in GNAT.Sockets), and new features
as well ..

Note we got some feedback of people playing with PolyORB, DSA and GCC
4.0.1, so things are possible, given enough resources are provided.

>> Note that the reason why I didn't package PolyORB is that it is a
>> generic middleware; I felt that I had to provide either all
>> personalities, or none at all. Providing no personality was easier :)
> I think the more right way is provide only stable personalities, for
> now
> (PolyORB 1.3):
> 
> - application: CORBA MOMA
> - protocol: GIOP SOAP
> - services: Event IR Naming Notification Time

Note that providing a personality means providing a few fields to
configure, and packaging the library that are built, there are no
others black magic behind. The process might be similar to other
packages. The libraries are loosely coupled, and the dependences easy
to track after some analysis.

You can join polyorb-users@ to discuss these issues if you're
interessted.

> The DSA personality still unstable up to 1.4. More whan, it require
> synchronization between it support inside GNAT compiler, GLADE's
> gnatdist and PolyORB. :( This is too complex task for provide it
> outside of AdaCore products. :(

As always, unless some people volunteer to help of the FSF front ;)

-- 
Jerome

Re: Recompiling?

[Martin Krischik]

Dr. Adrian Wrigley wrote:

> ASIS, Glade and Florist are not currently available for GCC 3.4"
> or is this now out of date?

Well they are available for paying costomers
 
> OK.  I know this question gets asked a lot, but things seem to
> be in continual flux:
> 
> Which free GNAT version would be best for meeting these criteria:
> 1) Linux, x86 architecture
> 2) with GLADE, PolyORB, ASIS, Florist
> 3) stable and robust for serious use

3.4.2 perhaps 3.4.3 - surprised? The Ada 2005 support in newer versions
completely broke ASIS so unless you have access the ASIS/Pro you can't use
any newer version.

GLADE is tricky with any version.

> The answer seems to be to use GNAT 3.4, but you have to compile
> everything yourself :(
> 
> What if I want x86_64 LP64 mode?  Is this straightforward?

3.4.x should be OK.

> Martin has some helpful information at:
> http://ada.krischik.com/

BTW: The side now uses Wiki technologie - anybody can contribute
improvements or fixes.

> but I'd much rather not spend the time and effort trying to
> build a complete tool chain and libraries :(  Are we going
> to see a suite of Debian packages in the near future?
> I wish I had time to help out!

Yes it does take some time - but once you have bunch of scripts ready it
goes almost by itself.

Martin
-- 
mailto://krischik@users.sourceforge.net
Ada programming at: http://ada.krischik.com

Re: Recompiling?

[Ludovic Brenta]

Martin Krischik <krischik@users.sourceforge.net> writes:
> Dr. Adrian Wrigley wrote:
>> Which free GNAT version would be best for meeting these criteria:
>> 1) Linux, x86 architecture
>> 2) with GLADE, PolyORB, ASIS, Florist
>> 3) stable and robust for serious use
>
> 3.4.2 perhaps 3.4.3 - surprised? The Ada 2005 support in newer
> versions completely broke ASIS so unless you have access the
> ASIS/Pro you can't use any newer version.

Are you trying to say that ASIS and GLADE work well with GCC 3.4.2?
Any supporting evidence?

-- 
Ludovic Brenta.

Re: Recompiling?

[Martin Krischik]

Ludovic Brenta wrote:

> Martin Krischik <krischik@users.sourceforge.net> writes:
>> Dr. Adrian Wrigley wrote:
>>> Which free GNAT version would be best for meeting these criteria:
>>> 1) Linux, x86 architecture
>>> 2) with GLADE, PolyORB, ASIS, Florist
>>> 3) stable and robust for serious use
>>
>> 3.4.2 perhaps 3.4.3 - surprised? The Ada 2005 support in newer
>> versions completely broke ASIS so unless you have access the
>> ASIS/Pro you can't use any newer version.
> 
> Are you trying to say that ASIS and GLADE work well with GCC 3.4.2?

ASIS did work but GLADE not because the -gnatz options was broken.

> Any supporting evidence?

AdaBrowse/GNATHTML did work. Or was it AdaDoc....

Martin

-- 
mailto://krischik@users.sourceforge.net
Ada programming at: http://ada.krischik.com

Re: Recompiling?

[Ludovic Brenta]

Martin Krischik <krischik@users.sourceforge.net> writes:
> Ludovic Brenta wrote:
>> Are you trying to say that ASIS and GLADE work well with GCC 3.4.2?
>
> ASIS did work but GLADE not because the -gnatz options was broken.

I just had a Dilbert moment that I just have to share with you all:

http://pag.csail.mit.edu/~adonovan/dilbert/show.php?day=11&month=06&year=2002

-- 
Ludovic Brenta.

Re: Recompiling?

[rolf.ebert_nospam_]

> Are you trying to say that ASIS and GLADE work well with GCC 3.4.2?

At least ASIS (gnat-asis.sourceforge.net) works well with gcc-3.4.x.

> Any supporting evidence?

I successfully used gnatelim, which is part of ASIS.  AdaBrowse is a
more complex ASIS application and works well, too.

    Rolf

Re: Recompiling?

[Ludovic Brenta]

rolf.ebert_nospam_@gmx.net a écrit :

> > Are you trying to say that ASIS and GLADE work well with GCC 3.4.2?
>
> At least ASIS (gnat-asis.sourceforge.net) works well with gcc-3.4.x.
>
> > Any supporting evidence?
>
> I successfully used gnatelim, which is part of ASIS.  AdaBrowse is a
> more complex ASIS application and works well, too.
>
>     Rolf

Thanks.  I'll change the system Ada compiler for Etch, then.  It seems
that gnat-3.4 is the best candidate, but unfortunately it would be at
odds with the system C and C++ compilers, meaning that it would not be
possible to mix Ada and C++ in the same program.  If I choose gnat-4.0
as the system Ada compiler, C++ works but ASIS breaks, right?

Thoughts?

Note that I will start the transition only after Etch completes its
glibc, g++, X.org, GNOME and KDE transitions, because of [1].  Note
also that the GNAT transition will take time as all packages will need
to be recompiled.

[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2005/08/msg00014.html

-- 
Ludovic Brenta.

Re: Recompiling?

[Georg Bauhaus]

Ludovic Brenta wrote:
> rolf.ebert_nospam_@gmx.net a écrit :
> 
> 
>>>Are you trying to say that ASIS and GLADE work well with GCC 3.4.2?
>>
>>At least ASIS (gnat-asis.sourceforge.net) works well with gcc-3.4.x.
>>
>>
>>>Any supporting evidence?
>>
>>I successfully used gnatelim, which is part of ASIS.  AdaBrowse is a
>>more complex ASIS application and works well, too.
>>
>>    Rolf
> 
> 
> Thanks.  I'll change the system Ada compiler for Etch, then.  It seems
> that gnat-3.4 is the best candidate, but unfortunately it would be at
> odds with the system C and C++ compilers, meaning that it would not be
> possible to mix Ada and C++ in the same program.  If I choose gnat-4.0
> as the system Ada compiler, C++ works but ASIS breaks, right?
> 
> Thoughts?

Given that the year 200X is coming closer, I wonder whether the typical
Debian Ada user (to be defined) will be more interested in ISO Ada tools,
possibly including GtkAda, PolyORB and AWS (thinking of the SOA boom),
than in ISO ASIS based add-ons? If Ada is used in a commercial setting, 
using Debian as a development platform, then the vendor/support will
have a word with the customers as to whether to use Ada 200X in preference,
I guess, thus GCC 4.x. Is this the case?

A# (hence Ada for Mono, adding value for the commercial Ada programmer),
"Now compiles with GNAT GAP (Academic Edition) 1.0.0 (uses some Ada
2005 features)", that statement being made about the October 2004
version of A#. The latest release is from June this year. I take this
to be a trend indicator towards GCC 4.

Re: Recompiling?

[Harald Korneliussen]

I see. On a side note, it's not the only thing I have to fix when
reinstalling. The projects I've made with autoconf/automake now refuse
to work. Pretty sweet for a system designed to maintain compatibility,
huh?

There's another pretty basic question I want to ask, about the correct
and portable way to install something like the Booch components as a
shared library. The package is just a bunch of source files. I suppose
I could copy them to every project that I use booch on, but that seems
so unclean and wasteful.

Any suggestions?

Harald Korneliussen

Re: Recompiling?

[Ludovic Brenta]

Harald Korneliussen a écrit :
> I see. On a side note, it's not the only thing I have to fix when
> reinstalling. The projects I've made with autoconf/automake now refuse
> to work. Pretty sweet for a system designed to maintain compatibility,
> huh?

Yes, the autotools routinely break compatibility with previous releases
of themselves.  Isn't it ironic?  Makefiles were invented to circumvent
the deficiencies of C (namely the lack of separate compilation); the
autotools were invented to circumvent the deficiencies of make (namely
the lack of portability), and now the autotools are revealing their own
deficiencies.

> There's another pretty basic question I want to ask, about the correct
> and portable way to install something like the Booch components as a
> shared library. The package is just a bunch of source files. I suppose
> I could copy them to every project that I use booch on, but that seems
> so unclean and wasteful.
>
> Any suggestions?

Package the Booch components for your distribution.  Follow the GNU Ada
Environment Specification[1].  Provide a GNAT project file, as
explained
in detail in [2].

[1] http://cert.uni-stuttgart.de/projects/ada/gnae.php
[2] http://www.ada-france.org/debian/debian-ada-policy.html

HTH

-- 
Ludovic Brenta.

Re: Recompiling?

[Simon Wright]

"Ludovic Brenta" <ludovic@ludovic-brenta.org> writes:

> Package the Booch components for your distribution.  Follow the GNU Ada
> Environment Specification[1].  Provide a GNAT project file, as
> explained
> in detail in [2].
>
> [1] http://cert.uni-stuttgart.de/projects/ada/gnae.php
> [2] http://www.ada-france.org/debian/debian-ada-policy.html

Looked at your [1]; it looks very "official" but it gives no context
that I can see. What organisation is proposing it? what universe does
it fit into? is it only intended for Debian? what about Windows?
MacOS? what do AdaCore think? FSF? It refers to a GNAT Filesystem
Hierarchy Standard proposal by J�rgen Pfeifer but gives no link?
(perhaps this document _is_ the FHS?)

Re: Recompiling?

[Ludovic Brenta]

Simon Wright a écrit :

> "Ludovic Brenta" <ludovic@ludovic-brenta.org> writes:
>
> > Package the Booch components for your distribution.  Follow the
> > GNU Ada Environment Specification[1].  Provide a GNAT project
> > file, as explained in detail in [2].
> >
> > [1] http://cert.uni-stuttgart.de/projects/ada/gnae.php
> > [2] http://www.ada-france.org/debian/debian-ada-policy.html
>
> Looked at your [1]; it looks very "official" but it gives no
> context that I can see. What organisation is proposing it? what
> universe does it fit into? is it only intended for Debian? what
> about Windows? MacOS? what do AdaCore think? FSF? It refers to a
> GNAT Filesystem Hierarchy Standard proposal by Jürgen Pfeifer but
> gives no link? (perhaps this document _is_ the FHS?)

GNAE is primarily written for GNU/Linux, *BSD, and Unix platforms.
The FHS (Filesystem Hierarchy Standard)[3] is a unifying standard for
all GNU/Linux distributions.  The organisation behind GNAE is Florian
Weimer, who is perhaps listening.  He took ideas from Jürgen Pfeifer,
who led the Ada for Linux team[4] for a while.

[3] http://www.pathname.com/fhs/
[4] http://www.gnuada.org/alt.html

Debian now implements part of the GNAE.  It implements the filesystem
but not the "adainstall" and "adaconfig" commands, which are replaced
with "apt-get" and GNAT project files, respectively. In fact, I would
support a change in GNAE to mandate project files and drop "adaconfig".

I see that Martin Krischik offers RPM packages of GNADE and other
things for SuSe and Red Hat, but I don't know if these packages comply
with the GNAE.

I'm not aware of a MacOS X distribution of Ada packages, but if there
is one, I hope it follows the GNAE too.

The only Ada distribution I know for Windows is AIDE, but it does not
seem to comply with GNAE (but I haven't looked at 1.03).

I don't know what AdaCore or the FSF think of GNAE.  Florian?

-- 
Ludovic Brenta.

Re: Recompiling?

[Stephane Riviere]

> The only Ada distribution I know for Windows is AIDE, but it does not
> seem to comply with GNAE (but I haven't looked at 1.03).

The next (2.0) AIDE release could be GNAE compliant, as this new release 
is planned to be multi-platform (Windows and Debian GNU/Linux).

 From the Windows side, the Unix root directory /usr could be changed 
for a root install directory choosed by the user... Everything behind 
could strictly follow GNAE recommendations.

-- 
Stephane Riviere
Oleron Island - France
http://stephane.rochebrune.org
OpenPgp Key <5fd6a1e6> available on the web site above

Re: Recompiling?

[Martin Krischik]

Harald Korneliussen wrote:

> There's another pretty basic question I want to ask, about the correct
> and portable way to install something like the Booch components as a
> shared library. The package is just a bunch of source files. I suppose
> I could copy them to every project that I use booch on, but that seems
> so unclean and wasteful.

AdaCL (adacl.sf.net) has an appropriate .gpr for the booch components. Just
look into the Script directory for bc.gpr.

If you don't want to download it all follow the links for browsing the cvs
archive.

MArtin

-- 
mailto://krischik@users.sourceforge.net
Ada programming at: http://ada.krischik.com

Re: Recompiling?

[Simon Wright]

Martin Krischik <krischik@users.sourceforge.net> writes:

> AdaCL (adacl.sf.net) has an appropriate .gpr for the booch
> components. Just look into the Script directory for bc.gpr.

That takes us to a page about pmwiki, with no obvious escape to a CVS
directory! Try sf.net/projects/adacl ...

Re: Recompiling?

[Martin Krischik]

Am Thu, 01 Sep 2005 07:01:38 +0200 hat Simon Wright <simon@pushface.org>  
geschrieben:

> Martin Krischik <krischik@users.sourceforge.net> writes:
>
>> AdaCL (adacl.sf.net) has an appropriate .gpr for the booch
>> components. Just look into the Script directory for bc.gpr.
>
> That takes us to a page about pmwiki, with no obvious escape to a CVS
> directory! Try sf.net/projects/adacl ...

Sorry - the page data was corrupted so the default pages where displayed.  
It's fixed now. Well you should never run a website without backup - not  
even on sourceforge! (if only the wife was not upset for me spending to  
much time in front of the computer)

Martin
-- 
mailto://krischik@users.sourceforge.net
Ada programming at: http://ada.krischik.com

Re: Recompiling?

[Simon Wright]

Martin Krischik <krischik@users.sourceforge.net> writes:

> Harald Korneliussen wrote:
>
>> There's another pretty basic question I want to ask, about the
>> correct and portable way to install something like the Booch
>> components as a shared library. The package is just a bunch of
>> source files. I suppose I could copy them to every project that I
>> use booch on, but that seems so unclean and wasteful.

I can see your point, though (here) the BC's Ada library directory
seems to be about a megabyte; most of the cost comes in the
instantiations. That would be different for a non-generic library, of
course.

> AdaCL (adacl.sf.net) has an appropriate .gpr for the booch
> components. Just look into the Script directory for bc.gpr.

It's appropriate if you buy in to the AdaCL view of directory
structures, options etc. Not that that's a bad thing, Martin has done
a great job here!

I had real trouble understanding how to deal with library projects in
GPRs, and (as far as I can remember) there was a problem with VxWorks
anyway last time I looked (or was it Linux?). That would have been at
3.16a1, and we do not have support for Linux. So I've always been
content with a plain subproject; this is what I use for ColdFrame
(coldframe.sf.net):

   with "Options";

   project BC is

     --  You must define the top node under which software is installed:
     --  for example, "/usr/local/lib"
     Top := external ("TOP");

     --  You must define where under TOP the BCs are installed; for
     --  example, "bc-20030111"
     BC := external ("BC");

     for Source_Dirs use (Top & "/" & BC);

     for Object_Dir use Options'Object_Dir & "/bc";

     package Ide renames Options.Ide;

     package Builder renames Options.Builder;

     package Compiler renames Options.Compiler;

     package Binder renames Options.Binder;

     package Linker renames Options.Linker;

   end BC;

but you can see that it's only intended for source inclusion --
amongst other things it assumes that each user project will have its
own view of the standard Options.

Re: Recompiling?

[Frank Piron]

Hi,

Am 29 Aug 2005 07:00:15 -0700 schrieb Harald Korneliussen 
<vintermann@gmail.com>:

> I have played around with Ada for some time on Linux, but it seems
> every time I upgrade the compiler I have to recompile (or possibly
> re-link?) my programs.
> It's a bit worrying that all my binaries stop working every time.
> Anyone know why this happens, and if anything can be done about it?
>

To get rid of the dependencies on libgnat you can build a static version 
libgnat.a and then link your program statically. I did so on Solaris 2.8.

-- 
I'm not a signature. Just cleaning up here.