* Recompiling? @ 2005-08-29 14:00 Harald Korneliussen 2005-08-29 15:26 ` Recompiling? Ludovic Brenta 2005-08-30 6:12 ` Recompiling? Frank Piron 0 siblings, 2 replies; 27+ messages in thread From: Harald Korneliussen @ 2005-08-29 14:00 UTC (permalink / raw) 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? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* Re: Recompiling? 2005-08-29 14:00 Recompiling? Harald Korneliussen @ 2005-08-29 15:26 ` Ludovic Brenta 2005-08-30 12:11 ` Recompiling? Dr. Adrian Wrigley 2005-08-31 10:32 ` Recompiling? Harald Korneliussen 2005-08-30 6:12 ` Recompiling? Frank Piron 1 sibling, 2 replies; 27+ messages in thread From: Ludovic Brenta @ 2005-08-29 15:26 UTC (permalink / raw) 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. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* Re: Recompiling? 2005-08-29 15:26 ` Recompiling? Ludovic Brenta @ 2005-08-30 12:11 ` Dr. Adrian Wrigley 2005-08-30 12:58 ` Recompiling? Ludovic Brenta 2005-08-31 16:59 ` Recompiling? Martin Krischik 2005-08-31 10:32 ` Recompiling? Harald Korneliussen 1 sibling, 2 replies; 27+ messages in thread From: Dr. Adrian Wrigley @ 2005-08-30 12:11 UTC (permalink / raw) 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* Re: Recompiling? 2005-08-30 12:11 ` Recompiling? Dr. Adrian Wrigley @ 2005-08-30 12:58 ` Ludovic Brenta 2005-08-30 13:09 ` Recompiling? Ludovic Brenta ` (2 more replies) 2005-08-31 16:59 ` Recompiling? Martin Krischik 1 sibling, 3 replies; 27+ messages in thread From: Ludovic Brenta @ 2005-08-30 12:58 UTC (permalink / raw) 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. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* Re: Recompiling? 2005-08-30 12:58 ` Recompiling? Ludovic Brenta @ 2005-08-30 13:09 ` Ludovic Brenta 2005-08-30 13:23 ` Recompiling? Alex R. Mosteo 2005-08-31 7:27 ` PolyORB, GCC, and Debian (was Re: Recompiling?) Ludovic Brenta 2 siblings, 0 replies; 27+ messages in thread From: Ludovic Brenta @ 2005-08-30 13:09 UTC (permalink / raw) 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. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* Re: Recompiling? 2005-08-30 12:58 ` Recompiling? Ludovic Brenta 2005-08-30 13:09 ` Recompiling? Ludovic Brenta @ 2005-08-30 13:23 ` Alex R. Mosteo 2005-08-31 7:27 ` PolyORB, GCC, and Debian (was Re: Recompiling?) Ludovic Brenta 2 siblings, 0 replies; 27+ messages in thread From: Alex R. Mosteo @ 2005-08-30 13:23 UTC (permalink / raw) 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 :) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* PolyORB, GCC, and Debian (was Re: Recompiling?) 2005-08-30 12:58 ` Recompiling? Ludovic Brenta 2005-08-30 13:09 ` Recompiling? Ludovic Brenta 2005-08-30 13:23 ` Recompiling? Alex R. Mosteo @ 2005-08-31 7:27 ` Ludovic Brenta 2005-08-31 8:22 ` Ludovic Brenta 2 siblings, 1 reply; 27+ messages in thread From: Ludovic Brenta @ 2005-08-31 7:27 UTC (permalink / raw) (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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* Re: PolyORB, GCC, and Debian (was Re: Recompiling?) 2005-08-31 7:27 ` PolyORB, GCC, and Debian (was Re: Recompiling?) Ludovic Brenta @ 2005-08-31 8:22 ` Ludovic Brenta 2005-08-31 8:25 ` Ludovic Brenta 0 siblings, 1 reply; 27+ messages in thread From: Ludovic Brenta @ 2005-08-31 8:22 UTC (permalink / raw) 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. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* Re: PolyORB, GCC, and Debian (was Re: Recompiling?) 2005-08-31 8:22 ` Ludovic Brenta @ 2005-08-31 8:25 ` Ludovic Brenta 2005-08-31 9:55 ` Jerome Hugues 0 siblings, 1 reply; 27+ messages in thread From: Ludovic Brenta @ 2005-08-31 8:25 UTC (permalink / raw) (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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* Re: PolyORB, GCC, and Debian (was Re: Recompiling?) 2005-08-31 8:25 ` Ludovic Brenta @ 2005-08-31 9:55 ` Jerome Hugues 0 siblings, 0 replies; 27+ messages in thread From: Jerome Hugues @ 2005-08-31 9:55 UTC (permalink / raw) 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* Re: Recompiling? 2005-08-30 12:11 ` Recompiling? Dr. Adrian Wrigley 2005-08-30 12:58 ` Recompiling? Ludovic Brenta @ 2005-08-31 16:59 ` Martin Krischik 2005-08-31 18:33 ` Recompiling? Ludovic Brenta 1 sibling, 1 reply; 27+ messages in thread From: Martin Krischik @ 2005-08-31 16:59 UTC (permalink / raw) 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* Re: Recompiling? 2005-08-31 16:59 ` Recompiling? Martin Krischik @ 2005-08-31 18:33 ` Ludovic Brenta 2005-08-31 19:03 ` Recompiling? Martin Krischik 2005-09-01 9:54 ` Recompiling? rolf.ebert_nospam_ 0 siblings, 2 replies; 27+ messages in thread From: Ludovic Brenta @ 2005-08-31 18:33 UTC (permalink / raw) 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. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* Re: Recompiling? 2005-08-31 18:33 ` Recompiling? Ludovic Brenta @ 2005-08-31 19:03 ` Martin Krischik 2005-09-03 14:02 ` Recompiling? Ludovic Brenta 2005-09-01 9:54 ` Recompiling? rolf.ebert_nospam_ 1 sibling, 1 reply; 27+ messages in thread From: Martin Krischik @ 2005-08-31 19:03 UTC (permalink / raw) 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* Re: Recompiling? 2005-08-31 19:03 ` Recompiling? Martin Krischik @ 2005-09-03 14:02 ` Ludovic Brenta 0 siblings, 0 replies; 27+ messages in thread From: Ludovic Brenta @ 2005-09-03 14:02 UTC (permalink / raw) 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. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* Re: Recompiling? 2005-08-31 18:33 ` Recompiling? Ludovic Brenta 2005-08-31 19:03 ` Recompiling? Martin Krischik @ 2005-09-01 9:54 ` rolf.ebert_nospam_ 2005-09-01 11:39 ` Recompiling? Ludovic Brenta 1 sibling, 1 reply; 27+ messages in thread From: rolf.ebert_nospam_ @ 2005-09-01 9:54 UTC (permalink / raw) > 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* Re: Recompiling? 2005-09-01 9:54 ` Recompiling? rolf.ebert_nospam_ @ 2005-09-01 11:39 ` Ludovic Brenta 2005-09-01 12:37 ` Recompiling? Georg Bauhaus 0 siblings, 1 reply; 27+ messages in thread From: Ludovic Brenta @ 2005-09-01 11:39 UTC (permalink / raw) 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. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* Re: Recompiling? 2005-09-01 11:39 ` Recompiling? Ludovic Brenta @ 2005-09-01 12:37 ` Georg Bauhaus 0 siblings, 0 replies; 27+ messages in thread From: Georg Bauhaus @ 2005-09-01 12:37 UTC (permalink / raw) 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. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* Re: Recompiling? 2005-08-29 15:26 ` Recompiling? Ludovic Brenta 2005-08-30 12:11 ` Recompiling? Dr. Adrian Wrigley @ 2005-08-31 10:32 ` Harald Korneliussen 2005-08-31 11:00 ` Recompiling? Ludovic Brenta 2005-08-31 16:52 ` Recompiling? Martin Krischik 1 sibling, 2 replies; 27+ messages in thread From: Harald Korneliussen @ 2005-08-31 10:32 UTC (permalink / raw) 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* Re: Recompiling? 2005-08-31 10:32 ` Recompiling? Harald Korneliussen @ 2005-08-31 11:00 ` Ludovic Brenta 2005-09-01 5:38 ` Recompiling? Simon Wright 2005-08-31 16:52 ` Recompiling? Martin Krischik 1 sibling, 1 reply; 27+ messages in thread From: Ludovic Brenta @ 2005-08-31 11:00 UTC (permalink / raw) 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. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* Re: Recompiling? 2005-08-31 11:00 ` Recompiling? Ludovic Brenta @ 2005-09-01 5:38 ` Simon Wright 2005-09-01 7:41 ` Recompiling? Ludovic Brenta 0 siblings, 1 reply; 27+ messages in thread From: Simon Wright @ 2005-09-01 5:38 UTC (permalink / raw) "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?) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* Re: Recompiling? 2005-09-01 5:38 ` Recompiling? Simon Wright @ 2005-09-01 7:41 ` Ludovic Brenta 2005-09-02 8:02 ` Recompiling? Stephane Riviere 0 siblings, 1 reply; 27+ messages in thread From: Ludovic Brenta @ 2005-09-01 7:41 UTC (permalink / raw) 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. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* Re: Recompiling? 2005-09-01 7:41 ` Recompiling? Ludovic Brenta @ 2005-09-02 8:02 ` Stephane Riviere 0 siblings, 0 replies; 27+ messages in thread From: Stephane Riviere @ 2005-09-02 8:02 UTC (permalink / raw) > 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* Re: Recompiling? 2005-08-31 10:32 ` Recompiling? Harald Korneliussen 2005-08-31 11:00 ` Recompiling? Ludovic Brenta @ 2005-08-31 16:52 ` Martin Krischik 2005-09-01 5:01 ` Recompiling? Simon Wright 2005-09-01 5:28 ` Recompiling? Simon Wright 1 sibling, 2 replies; 27+ messages in thread From: Martin Krischik @ 2005-08-31 16:52 UTC (permalink / raw) 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* Re: Recompiling? 2005-08-31 16:52 ` Recompiling? Martin Krischik @ 2005-09-01 5:01 ` Simon Wright 2005-09-02 18:17 ` Recompiling? Martin Krischik 2005-09-01 5:28 ` Recompiling? Simon Wright 1 sibling, 1 reply; 27+ messages in thread From: Simon Wright @ 2005-09-01 5:01 UTC (permalink / raw) 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 ... ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* Re: Recompiling? 2005-09-01 5:01 ` Recompiling? Simon Wright @ 2005-09-02 18:17 ` Martin Krischik 0 siblings, 0 replies; 27+ messages in thread From: Martin Krischik @ 2005-09-02 18:17 UTC (permalink / raw) 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* Re: Recompiling? 2005-08-31 16:52 ` Recompiling? Martin Krischik 2005-09-01 5:01 ` Recompiling? Simon Wright @ 2005-09-01 5:28 ` Simon Wright 1 sibling, 0 replies; 27+ messages in thread From: Simon Wright @ 2005-09-01 5:28 UTC (permalink / raw) 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. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* Re: Recompiling? 2005-08-29 14:00 Recompiling? Harald Korneliussen 2005-08-29 15:26 ` Recompiling? Ludovic Brenta @ 2005-08-30 6:12 ` Frank Piron 1 sibling, 0 replies; 27+ messages in thread From: Frank Piron @ 2005-08-30 6:12 UTC (permalink / raw) 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. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2005-09-03 14:02 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 27+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2005-08-29 14:00 Recompiling? Harald Korneliussen 2005-08-29 15:26 ` Recompiling? Ludovic Brenta 2005-08-30 12:11 ` Recompiling? Dr. Adrian Wrigley 2005-08-30 12:58 ` Recompiling? Ludovic Brenta 2005-08-30 13:09 ` Recompiling? Ludovic Brenta 2005-08-30 13:23 ` Recompiling? Alex R. Mosteo 2005-08-31 7:27 ` PolyORB, GCC, and Debian (was Re: Recompiling?) Ludovic Brenta 2005-08-31 8:22 ` Ludovic Brenta 2005-08-31 8:25 ` Ludovic Brenta 2005-08-31 9:55 ` Jerome Hugues 2005-08-31 16:59 ` Recompiling? Martin Krischik 2005-08-31 18:33 ` Recompiling? Ludovic Brenta 2005-08-31 19:03 ` Recompiling? Martin Krischik 2005-09-03 14:02 ` Recompiling? Ludovic Brenta 2005-09-01 9:54 ` Recompiling? rolf.ebert_nospam_ 2005-09-01 11:39 ` Recompiling? Ludovic Brenta 2005-09-01 12:37 ` Recompiling? Georg Bauhaus 2005-08-31 10:32 ` Recompiling? Harald Korneliussen 2005-08-31 11:00 ` Recompiling? Ludovic Brenta 2005-09-01 5:38 ` Recompiling? Simon Wright 2005-09-01 7:41 ` Recompiling? Ludovic Brenta 2005-09-02 8:02 ` Recompiling? Stephane Riviere 2005-08-31 16:52 ` Recompiling? Martin Krischik 2005-09-01 5:01 ` Recompiling? Simon Wright 2005-09-02 18:17 ` Recompiling? Martin Krischik 2005-09-01 5:28 ` Recompiling? Simon Wright 2005-08-30 6:12 ` Recompiling? Frank Piron
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox