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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,
	INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,907b3ebe7a56db22
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: bgaffney42@aol.com (BGaffney42)
Subject: Re: DOS GNAT or Win95/NT GNAT? (Ada 95)
Date: 1997/05/09
Message-ID: <19970509221401.SAA27483@ladder02.news.aol.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 240665792
References: <862119903.21snx@jvdsys.nextjk.stuyts.nl>
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
X-Admin: news@aol.com
Date: 1997-05-09T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Jerry van Dijk wrote (of GNAT/DOS vs GNAT/WinNT):
>
>2. Win95 supports long file names, the DOS version doesn't (yet)
>
I'm not sure what you mean here, I've had no problem doing this.  And I'm
not even up to 3.09
(I'm on 3.04 or some such).  Granted, I had to make one or two slight
changes:

     1. Add a default of -k256 in GNATCHOP.BAT so the chopped files have
long filenames.
          (By the way, I also had to modify it to recognize the -r option
since it never has recognized it)

     2. Add a -k256 to GNATMAKE commands (which is easier if you use a
.BAT file to 
control compilation.

The only problem I've seen is when I forget the -k256 to compile
something.  Other than that, I 
don't think there are any problems.  I'm glad GNAT likes the library files
with short names, 
cause that would have been a pain.

                                                                          
      --Bg