Re: I have gnat 13.1.0 on my M1 Mac; I'd like to have my own Ada+GNAT *.ad[sb] library files, where are they?

[Jere <jhb.chat@gmail.com>]

On Sunday, June 25, 2023 at 5:49:11 PM UTC-4, Keith Thompson wrote:
> Simon Wright writes: 
> [...]
> > But you say you know that. I wonder whether it's the crunched filenames 
> > that are confusing? (a legacy of the days when DOS 8.3 filenames were 
> > required for a large part of GNAT's target audience). You can find the 
> > crunched filename for a package using gnatkr (gnat krunch): 
> >
> > $ gnatkr ada.sequential_io.ads 
> [fixed typo]
> > a-sequio.ads 
> > 
> > (you don't actually need whatever's after the final period to be the 
> > actual file extension: you could use '.open' or just '.').
> Which raises a question: Why does GNAT still use crunched filenames? It 
> probably makes sense to continue to support them (does anyone use GNAT 
> on MS-DOS?), but I wouldn't think it would be difficult to use full file 
> names on the vast majority of systems that support them. It's not a 
> huge deal, but using full file names where possible would be less 
> annoying. 

Unless they changed how the GNAT compiler works in the last few years, then my guess is inertia
to do that.   Right before the pandemic hit, I had the neat idea of doing my own bare metal 
runtime and to use normal uncrunched names.  The RTS compiled just fine doing that.  However,
when I tried to use the RTS to build a full fledged program, it failed to find the package in the RTS.
I don't recall if it failed at compile time or link time, but crunching the names and recompiling the
RTS fixed the issue.  So something in their compiler requires the crunched names, or if they have
since changed that, used to require it.