The GNU Ada compiler

The GNU Ada compiler

[Martin Krischik]

Hello,

I have finally managed to take over the "The GNU Ada compiler" project. The
project will supply community compiled binary packages of the GNAT
compiler.

Currently there is only a very old GNAT for DOS available. But as I type
this the first packages for Linux are uploaded.

A new Homepage will follow soon and until then you can just look at the
project page:

https://sourceforge.net/projects/gnuada

Of corse I need help if this project is really to take off. If you have an
rpm based Linux system you can just download the RPM kit (as rpm or via
CVS) and you should have a rpm package in no time.

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

Re: The GNU Ada compiler

[Larry Kilgallen]

In article <8352037.GvZVdQSXN4@linux1.krischik.com>, Martin Krischik <krischik@users.sourceforge.net> writes:
> Hello,
> 
> I have finally managed to take over the "The GNU Ada compiler" project. The
> project will supply community compiled binary packages of the GNAT
> compiler.
> 
> Currently there is only a very old GNAT for DOS available. But as I type
> this the first packages for Linux are uploaded.

Will you be supplying kits for VMS ?

Re: The GNU Ada compiler

[Martin Krischik]

Larry Kilgallen wrote:

> In article <8352037.GvZVdQSXN4@linux1.krischik.com>, Martin Krischik
> <krischik@users.sourceforge.net> writes:
>> Hello,
>> 
>> I have finally managed to take over the "The GNU Ada compiler" project.
>> The project will supply community compiled binary packages of the GNAT
>> compiler.
>> 
>> Currently there is only a very old GNAT for DOS available. But as I type
>> this the first packages for Linux are uploaded.
 
> Will you be supplying kits for VMS ?

Well, I have no private VMS machine and the company VMS clusters have
GNAT/Pro allready installed. You can understand that I would not want to
mess with them.

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

Re: The GNU Ada compiler

[Adrian Knoth]

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

>> Will you be supplying kits for VMS?
> Well, I have no private VMS machine and the company VMS clusters have
> GNAT/Pro already installed.

Perhaps it's possible to use this one to bootstrap the gnat-3.x/4.0-
version? I don't know much about VMS, but creating a package
should be possible without interfearing the installed version?.



-- 
mail: adi@thur.de  	http://adi.thur.de	PGP: v2-key via keyserver

Difference between a virus & windows?  Viruses never fail.

Re: The GNU Ada compiler

[Martin Krischik]

Adrian Knoth wrote:

> Martin Krischik <krischik@users.sourceforge.net> wrote:
> 
>>> Will you be supplying kits for VMS?

>> Well, I have no private VMS machine and the company VMS clusters have
>> GNAT/Pro already installed.

> Perhaps it's possible to use this one to bootstrap the gnat-3.x/4.0-
> version? I don't know much about VMS, but creating a package
> should be possible without interfearing the installed version?.

I never thought there would be a demand for OpenVMS - thinking that any
OpenVMS shop using Ada would have GNAT/Pro or DecAda or both.

However, I also know that there is a special OpenVMS patch to GNAT/Pro which
is more then 700kB in size. Do I have to say more?

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

Re: The GNU Ada compiler

[Björn Persson]

Do your packages for Suse replace the Gnat packages that Suse provides, 
or can they coexist? In the latter case, how does the user choose which 
compiler to use?

I've got the impression that when interfacing to other languages all the 
pieces need to be compiled with the same version of GCC, so if these 
releases only provide Ada I suppose they shouldn't be used for 
mixed-language projects. Or am I misinformed?

-- 
Bj�rn Persson                              PGP key A88682FD
                    omb jor ers @sv ge.
                    r o.b n.p son eri nu

Re: The GNU Ada compiler

[Martin Krischik]

Bjï¿œrn Persson wrote:

> Do your packages for Suse replace the Gnat packages that Suse provides,
> or can they coexist?

I never ever would replace the SuSE packages - you need them to compile the
kernel!

> In the latter case, how does the user choose which 
> compiler to use?

The classic way:

PATH=/opt/gnat/bin:${PATH}

> I've got the impression that when interfacing to other languages all the
> pieces need to be compiled with the same version of GCC, so if these
> releases only provide Ada I suppose they shouldn't be used for
> mixed-language projects. Or am I misinformed? 

That is indeed true and I compile all languages which with the packages so
there won't be any problems. Of corse that makes the packages as large as
they are :-( .

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

Re: The GNU Ada compiler

[Adrian Knoth]

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

>> Do your packages for Suse replace the Gnat packages that Suse provides,
>> or can they coexist?
> I never ever would replace the SuSE packages - you need them to compile
> the kernel!

I think this is not the answer to the same question which arose
for me yesterday: if the distribution ships a gnat package, why
would one use yours?


-- 
mail: adi@thur.de  	http://adi.thur.de	PGP: v2-key via keyserver

Handschellen sind das beste Abf�hrmittel

Re: The GNU Ada compiler

[Björn Persson]

Martin Krischik wrote:
> That is indeed true and I compile all languages which with the packages so
> there won't be any problems. Of corse that makes the packages as large as
> they are :-( .

I see. So the "GNAT/GCC" packages are actually complete all-in-one GCC 
packages.

-- 
Bjï¿œrn Persson                              PGP key A88682FD
                    omb jor ers @sv ge.
                    r o.b n.p son eri nu

Re: The GNU Ada compiler

[Larry Kilgallen]

In article <1500332.U7CjsdsL0l@linux1.krischik.com>, Martin Krischik <krischik@users.sourceforge.net> writes:

> I never thought there would be a demand for OpenVMS - thinking that any
> OpenVMS shop using Ada would have GNAT/Pro or DecAda or both.
> 
> However, I also know that there is a special OpenVMS patch to GNAT/Pro which
> is more then 700kB in size. Do I have to say more?

Yes you do have to say more to communicate to those of us who do not
have any experience with GNAT.

Re: The GNU Ada compiler

[Ludovic Brenta]

Adrian Knoth <adi@thur.de> writes:
> Martin Krischik <krischik@users.sourceforge.net> wrote:
>
>>> Do your packages for Suse replace the Gnat packages that Suse
>>> provides, or can they coexist?
>> I never ever would replace the SuSE packages - you need them to
>> compile the kernel!
>
> I think this is not the answer to the same question which arose for
> me yesterday: if the distribution ships a gnat package, why would
> one use yours?

Yes, and another question: do your packages include all the
distribution-specific patches, which are often necessary to compile
the kernel or glibc?

I appreciate your efforts, but my gut feeling is that they are not
very productive; it would be more worthwhile, IMHO, to just join the
existing maintenance teams of GCC in your distribution of choice, and
provide patches to their build scripts or to the compiler itself as
necessary.  This way, the default GNAT shipped by your distribution
would retain the ability to compile the kernel and glibc, and also
have good Ada and good multi-language support.

I would like to add that, in 2001, I switched from Red Hat to Debian
for precisely two reasons: no Ada support in Red Hat 8, and no
possibility that I could influence them.  And now, I do much more than
influence Ada in Debian :)

-- 
Ludovic Brenta.

Re: The GNU Ada compiler

[Martin Krischik]

Adrian Knoth wrote:

> Martin Krischik <krischik@users.sourceforge.net> wrote:
> 
>>> Do your packages for Suse replace the Gnat packages that Suse provides,
>>> or can they coexist?
>> I never ever would replace the SuSE packages - you need them to compile
>> the kernel!
> 
> I think this is not the answer to the same question which arose
> for me yesterday: if the distribution ships a gnat package, why
> would one use yours?

A distribution will only ship one specific version of gcc where the ability
to compile the kernel is the most important feature. 2nd comes availability
at time the distribution was created.

If you have SuSE 9.x you get a gcc 3.3.x - notoriously bad release for Ada.

If you have SuSE 10 you get:

GNAT 4.0.2 20050901 (prerelease) (SUSE Linux)

"prerelease" - makes me uneasy.

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

Re: The GNU Ada compiler

[Martin Krischik]

Larry Kilgallen wrote:

> In article <1500332.U7CjsdsL0l@linux1.krischik.com>, Martin Krischik
> <krischik@users.sourceforge.net> writes:
> 
>> I never thought there would be a demand for OpenVMS - thinking that any
>> OpenVMS shop using Ada would have GNAT/Pro or DecAda or both.
>> 
>> However, I also know that there is a special OpenVMS patch to GNAT/Pro
>> which is more then 700kB in size. Do I have to say more?
> 
> Yes you do have to say more to communicate to those of us who do not
> have any experience with GNAT.

Well, you don't actually need experience with GNAT. You need experience with
diff and patch ;-).

There are 700kb worth of special changes to the standart GCC in order to
make GNAT work pleasantly on OpenVMS. So just compiling a standart GCC on
OpenVMS might not be enough to have an well working Ada on OpenVMS.

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

Re: The GNU Ada compiler

[Martin Krischik]

Ludovic Brenta wrote:

> Adrian Knoth <adi@thur.de> writes:
>> Martin Krischik <krischik@users.sourceforge.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> Do your packages for Suse replace the Gnat packages that Suse
>>>> provides, or can they coexist?
>>> I never ever would replace the SuSE packages - you need them to
>>> compile the kernel!
>>
>> I think this is not the answer to the same question which arose for
>> me yesterday: if the distribution ships a gnat package, why would
>> one use yours?
> 
> Yes, and another question: do your packages include all the
> distribution-specific patches, which are often necessary to compile
> the kernel or glibc?

No:

cat /etc/profile.d/ada.bash
if [[ (${USER} != root) && (-z ${_ada_bash_} ) ]] ; then

I keep the original compiler for root to use.

> I appreciate your efforts, but my gut feeling is that they are not
> very productive; it would be more worthwhile, IMHO, to just join the
> existing maintenance teams of GCC in your distribution of choice, and
> provide patches to their build scripts or to the compiler itself as
> necessary.  This way, the default GNAT shipped by your distribution
> would retain the ability to compile the kernel and glibc, and also
> have good Ada and good multi-language support.

Before SuSE 10 this was no option at all. Up until then SuSE used gcc 3.3.x.
And we know that Ada in gcc only became usable *again* with 3.4.x.

With SuSE 10 they jumped right to 4.0.2 - and a prerelease snapshot on top.
I am unsure if 4.0.2 is a good release either since AdaCore used 3.4.x as
basis for GNAT/Pro and GNAT/GPL.

> I would like to add that, in 2001, I switched from Red Hat to Debian
> for precisely two reasons: no Ada support in Red Hat 8, and no
> possibility that I could influence them.  And now, I do much more than
> influence Ada in Debian :)

But we would not want that Ada is only available to debian. That would leat
to lots of FUD.

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

Re: The GNU Ada compiler

[Larry Kilgallen]

In article <1691618.MhViCBI7GN@linux1.krischik.com>, Martin Krischik <krischik@users.sourceforge.net> writes:
> Larry Kilgallen wrote:
> 
>> In article <1500332.U7CjsdsL0l@linux1.krischik.com>, Martin Krischik
>> <krischik@users.sourceforge.net> writes:
>> 
>>> I never thought there would be a demand for OpenVMS - thinking that any
>>> OpenVMS shop using Ada would have GNAT/Pro or DecAda or both.
>>> 
>>> However, I also know that there is a special OpenVMS patch to GNAT/Pro
>>> which is more then 700kB in size. Do I have to say more?
>> 
>> Yes you do have to say more to communicate to those of us who do not
>> have any experience with GNAT.
> 
> Well, you don't actually need experience with GNAT. You need experience with
> diff and patch ;-).

I presume you mean something other than the standard VMS utilities
PATCH (which is VAX-only) and DIFFERENCES.

> There are 700kb worth of special changes to the standart GCC in order to
> make GNAT work pleasantly on OpenVMS. So just compiling a standart GCC on
> OpenVMS might not be enough to have an well working Ada on OpenVMS.

So the GNAT which is on the publically accessible source repository
does not represent something that _ever_ worked on VMS ?

Re: The GNU Ada compiler

[Georg Bauhaus]

On Mon, 2005-12-19 at 15:53 +0100, Ludovic Brenta wrote:

>   And now, I do much more than
> influence Ada in Debian :)

And thanks for that, btw.

Re: The GNU Ada compiler

[Ludovic Brenta]

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

[about patching the default GCC until it supports Ada well, instead of
adding a new GNAT]

> Before SuSE 10 this was no option at all. Up until then SuSE used
> gcc 3.3.x.  And we know that Ada in gcc only became usable *again*
> with 3.4.x.
>
> With SuSE 10 they jumped right to 4.0.2 - and a prerelease snapshot
> on top.  I am unsure if 4.0.2 is a good release either since AdaCore
> used 3.4.x as basis for GNAT/Pro and GNAT/GPL.

It is true that each distribution's policy WRT compiler and toolchain
affects Ada support.  When SuSE's policy was to ship only GCC 3.3, it
would have been a good idea to try and stop them from shipping GCC
3.3's Ada support at all, and instead ship gnat 3.15p.  But it is too
late now.

>> I would like to add that, in 2001, I switched from Red Hat to
>> Debian for precisely two reasons: no Ada support in Red Hat 8, and
>> no possibility that I could influence them.  And now, I do much
>> more than influence Ada in Debian :)
>
> But we would not want that Ada is only available to debian. That
> would leat to lots of FUD.

I never suggested that Debian should be the only distribution with Ada
support.  On the contrary, I am quite pleased to see that you take it
upon yourself to improve the situation.

Sadly, there is already a lot of FUD created by poor support for Ada
in most distributions.  Do you not agree that SuSE, for example,
created a lot of FUD by shipping gnat-3.3?

I still think that the best way to reduce this confusion is not to
create a new binary distribution of GNAT (which would more or less
compete with AdaCore's), but instead to join your distribution's GCC
maintenance team and influence them so they provide good Ada support
*by default*.  Of course, if you also provide a central repository for
patches that can be shared between distributions, this is all for the
better.

As to how GCC 4.0.2 fares Ada-wise, I am not sure either but I have
decided to skip it entirely in Debian, because the next stable release
of Debian (due in december 2006) will probably not include it.  I am
going for GCC 4.1 instead, and I am even prepared to backport Ada
fixes from HEAD to GCC 4.1 if necessary.

-- 
Ludovic Brenta.

Re: The GNU Ada compiler

[Martin Krischik]

Larry Kilgallen wrote:

> In article <1691618.MhViCBI7GN@linux1.krischik.com>, Martin Krischik
> <krischik@users.sourceforge.net> writes:
>> Larry Kilgallen wrote:
>> 
>>> In article <1500332.U7CjsdsL0l@linux1.krischik.com>, Martin Krischik
>>> <krischik@users.sourceforge.net> writes:
>>> 
>>>> I never thought there would be a demand for OpenVMS - thinking that any
>>>> OpenVMS shop using Ada would have GNAT/Pro or DecAda or both.
>>>> 
>>>> However, I also know that there is a special OpenVMS patch to GNAT/Pro
>>>> which is more then 700kB in size. Do I have to say more?
>>> 
>>> Yes you do have to say more to communicate to those of us who do not
>>> have any experience with GNAT.
>> 
>> Well, you don't actually need experience with GNAT. You need experience
>> with diff and patch ;-).
> 
> I presume you mean something other than the standard VMS utilities
> PATCH (which is VAX-only) and DIFFERENCES.

Well Unix patch and unix diff - same job - different commandline options.
You get them for VMS as well via GNV (GNU's Not VMS).

>> There are 700kb worth of special changes to the standart GCC in order to
>> make GNAT work pleasantly on OpenVMS. So just compiling a standart GCC on
>> OpenVMS might not be enough to have an well working Ada on OpenVMS.
> 
> So the GNAT which is on the publically accessible source repository
> does not represent something that _ever_ worked on VMS ?

I don't know! You have to ask AdaCore about that. Only they know if there is
any release in the FSF repository which is also an officially released GNAT
-  or at least works well with VMS. 

But this is a problem for any OS. If you download the GNAT/GPL sources:
There is a 700kb patch file for all OSes. Now the README.BUILD of GNAT/GPL
says:

|  as well as a set of patches that you may need to apply to the
| GCC sources, depending on your target platform. One of these patches is
| "gcc-34.dif" and should be applied whatever the target.

Only there are no target specific patch files in GNAT/GPL. There is a
district 2 class society here and it is more the just the difference
between GPL and GMGPL.

The way it works: AdaCore commits there sources to HEAD of the FSF tree -
but they don't actually use HEAD for GNAT/Pro and GNAT/GPL. Instead they
backport the changes to some older - and presumably more stable GCC. 

And obviously they have to sets of patch files: general and target specific.

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

Re: The GNU Ada compiler

[Martin Krischik]

Ludovic Brenta wrote:

> Sadly, there is already a lot of FUD created by poor support for Ada
> in most distributions.  Do you not agree that SuSE, for example,
> created a lot of FUD by shipping gnat-3.3?

Indeed they did. Mind you: Hello_World compiles OK with 3.3.

> I still think that the best way to reduce this confusion is not to
> create a new binary distribution of GNAT (which would more or less
> compete with AdaCore's),

I think AdaCore could do with some competition in the binary distribution
area. Especial for targets for which they don't offer a GNAT/GPL edition.

> but instead to join your distribution's GCC 
> maintenance team and influence them so they provide good Ada support
> *by default*.  Of course, if you also provide a central repository for
> patches that can be shared between distributions, this is all for the
> better.

True. But that is a lot more work - I don't know if I have time for that.

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

Re: The GNU Ada compiler

[Simon Clubley]

In article <sGdW48rcHxe0@eisner.encompasserve.org>, Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) writes:
> In article <1691618.MhViCBI7GN@linux1.krischik.com>, Martin Krischik <krischik@users.sourceforge.net> writes:
>> There are 700kb worth of special changes to the standart GCC in order to
>> make GNAT work pleasantly on OpenVMS. So just compiling a standart GCC on
>> OpenVMS might not be enough to have an well working Ada on OpenVMS.
> 
> So the GNAT which is on the publically accessible source repository
> does not represent something that _ever_ worked on VMS ?

This was the impression that I had started to develop after trying to build
it on VMS, but I could never get the compiler actually built in order to
test it.

The build sequence hung the GNV version of the GNU tools available from HP,
and it appears that ACT use their own version of the GNU tools.

Simon.

-- 
Simon Clubley, clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP
If Google's motto is "do no wrong", then how did we get Google Groups 2 ?

Re: The GNU Ada compiler

[Steve Whalen]

Martin Krischik wrote:
>
> >> There are 700kb worth of special changes to the standart GCC in order to
> >> make GNAT work pleasantly on OpenVMS. So just compiling a standart GCC on
> >> OpenVMS might not be enough to have an well working Ada on OpenVMS.
> >
> > So the GNAT which is on the publically accessible source repository
> > does not represent something that _ever_ worked on VMS ?
>
> I don't know! You have to ask AdaCore about that. Only they know if there is
> any release in the FSF repository which is also an officially released GNAT
> -  or at least works well with VMS.
>
> But this is a problem for any OS. If you download the GNAT/GPL sources:
> There is a 700kb patch file for all OSes. Now the README.BUILD of GNAT/GPL
> says:
>
> |  as well as a set of patches that you may need to apply to the
> | GCC sources, depending on your target platform. One of these patches is
> | "gcc-34.dif" and should be applied whatever the target.
>
> Only there are no target specific patch files in GNAT/GPL. There is a
> district 2 class society here and it is more the just the difference
> between GPL and GMGPL.
>
> The way it works: AdaCore commits there sources to HEAD of the FSF tree -
> but they don't actually use HEAD for GNAT/Pro and GNAT/GPL. Instead they
> backport the changes to some older - and presumably more stable GCC.

... and later ...

> I think AdaCore could do with some competition in the binary distribution
> area. Especial for targets for which they don't offer a GNAT/GPL edition.

First, thank you for getting this project started again.

I agree that it is badly needed and appreciate your efforts. I think
we need these compilers for all targets, whether or not GNAT/GPL
editions are available. Much of the real world lives outside the GPL
universe and a GPL only compiler is not going to help get Ada into
such a shop, particularly a smaller shop.

I already suggested that one small shop take a look at the GPL version
of Ada to see what Ada could do, but was told "It won't do any good if
it's GPL only; we don't write GPL software here".

In the past, I would have given the person in the shop who was willing
to take the time to look at Ada, a CD or a link to a GNAT download for
(in this instance) the Windows platform and they could try it out.
The fact that they knew that if they wrote an interesting prototype in
Ada they could sell it without restriction, made it much easier to get
a "foot in the door" for Ada.

It doesn't do any good to try to convince a small shop to start using
Ada by having them try the GNAT GPL version, when they know that it's
going to cost them several thousand dollars (or euros) per seat for a
version of Ada that allows them to write non-GPL proprietary
applications.  Especially in non-defense oriented smaller shops, they
just don't have that kind of money to throw at a technology they
aren't' sure they can make use of.  We need free GMGPL compilers to
bridge that gap.

To proselytize Ada requires being able to put a fully usable Ada
compiler on whatever hardware and software environment is used in a
shop you want to impress without cost or restriction, and without
worrying about whether the Ada compiler is as brain dead as some of
them were / are when the gcc maintainers and the distribution release
people decided to pull the gcc tree for a distribution's release.

We DO very much need a separate effort to be able to package Ada at
those times when it is stable and then make THAT compiler and those
libraries available with the GMGPL exceptions in all the right places.

The gcc that is chosen for release by distribution maintainers is
based on many factors, the very least of which is the state of the Ada
compiler in that particular flavor of gcc.

If we could point the distribution maintainers to a sourceforge site
and have them know that at any point in time the most stable version
of Ada was available there, we might have a very good chance that
quality Ada compilers would be distributed with more than just debian
(for which I thank Ludovic Brenta).

In particular for proselytizing Ada, stable GMGPL Ada compilers need
to be available for Windows (Ming and cygwin), Redhat, SUSE, Mandrake,
and Solaris.

Steve

Re: The GNU Ada compiler

[Simon Wright]

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

> Larry Kilgallen wrote:

>> I presume you mean something other than the standard VMS utilities
>> PATCH (which is VAX-only) and DIFFERENCES.
>
> Well Unix patch and unix diff - same job - different commandline
> options.  You get them for VMS as well via GNV (GNU's Not VMS).

IIRC, VMS PATCH is for patching binaries, so not the same at all! Unix
patch is for source files.

Unix diff is more like the VMS utility, though one of its features is
the ability to output diffs in a form that can be used as input to
patch.

Re: The GNU Ada compiler

[Ludovic Brenta]

"Steve Whalen" <SteveWhalen001@hotmail.com> writes:
> In particular for proselytizing Ada, stable GMGPL Ada compilers need
> to be available for Windows (Ming and cygwin), Redhat, SUSE,
> Mandrake, and Solaris.

I agree wholeheartedly.  For Windows, there are already two binary
distributions of GNAT under GMGPL: AIDE[1], and MinGW[2].  I have
tried neither of them (since I don't have Windows) but it seems to me
that MinGW has the larger mind share, and AIDE the better quality
thanks to the dedication of its maintainer, Stéphane Rivière.

Solaris also has a binary distribution[3,4] containing both GCC 3.4.4
and 4.0.1 with Ada support; but I have never tried it and I cannot
assess its quality.

FreeBSD[5] seems not to be very active WRT Ada, but there are ports
for gnat 3.15p, asis and glade.  The ports for GCC 3.4.4, 4.0.3, 4.1.0
and 4.2.0 (the latter three being works in progress) lack Ada support.
I am quite confident that FreeBSD's GCC maintainer would gratefully
accept patches to enable Ada on that platform.

[1] http://stephane.rochebrune.org/aide/aide.html
[2] http://www.mingw.org
[3] http://www.blastwave.org
[4] http://www.canoedissent.org.uk/ss/type.jsp?c=prog
[5] http://www.freebsd.org

Now, it would be nice if Red Hat, SuSE and Mandriva would improve
their support for Ada.  The best way to make this happen is to lobby
them, join their GCC maintenance teams, and contribute.  Martin's
project on SourceForge is a good testing ground for patches.  Well
tested patches and build scripts stand a good chance of being accepted
into these distributions.

-- 
Ludovic Brenta.

Re: The GNU Ada compiler

[Martin Krischik]

Steve Whalen wrote:

> Martin Krischik wrote:

>> I think AdaCore could do with some competition in the binary distribution
>> area. Especial for targets for which they don't offer a GNAT/GPL edition.
 
> First, thank you for getting this project started again.

Thanks.
 
> I agree that it is badly needed and appreciate your efforts. I think
> we need these compilers for all targets, whether or not GNAT/GPL
> editions are available. Much of the real world lives outside the GPL
> universe and a GPL only compiler is not going to help get Ada into
> such a shop, particularly a smaller shop.

Currently I concentrate much on the GNAT/GPL but I think that may change
when gcc 4.1 is out of the door. Apart from that I monitor the download
stats to see what is appreciated and what is waisted effort.

Interestingly enough currently source-rpm are more in demand then actual
binaries.

> It doesn't do any good to try to convince a small shop to start using
> Ada by having them try the GNAT GPL version, when they know that it's
> going to cost them several thousand dollars (or euros) per seat for a
> version of Ada that allows them to write non-GPL proprietary
> applications.  Especially in non-defense oriented smaller shops, they
> just don't have that kind of money to throw at a technology they
> aren't' sure they can make use of.  We need free GMGPL compilers to
> bridge that gap.

Indeed. 

> To proselytize Ada requires being able to put a fully usable Ada
> compiler on whatever hardware and software environment is used in a
> shop you want to impress without cost or restriction, and without
> worrying about whether the Ada compiler is as brain dead as some of
> them were / are when the gcc maintainers and the distribution release
> people decided to pull the gcc tree for a distribution's release.

This is why I hope to draw any maintainer to the project so we have a one
stop for all GNAT needs.

> We DO very much need a separate effort to be able to package Ada at
> those times when it is stable and then make THAT compiler and those
> libraries available with the GMGPL exceptions in all the right places.

Yep and I just added the first library. One Stop. Don't ask for anything - I
add the libraries I use for selfish reasons: Having installation images
handy is helpfull from time to time.

> The gcc that is chosen for release by distribution maintainers is
> based on many factors, the very least of which is the state of the Ada
> compiler in that particular flavor of gcc.

Right. That's why - up to now - I never used the distribution compiler. This
might change if 4.1 holds all it's promisses.

> If we could point the distribution maintainers to a sourceforge site
> and have them know that at any point in time the most stable version
> of Ada was available there, we might have a very good chance that
> quality Ada compilers would be distributed with more than just debian
> (for which I thank Ludovic Brenta).

This is why I make all the .spec files available as well - even as an rpm
install.

> In particular for proselytizing Ada, stable GMGPL Ada compilers need
> to be available for Windows (Ming and cygwin), Redhat, SUSE, Mandrake,
> and Solaris.

As I said before: I can only do SuSE and only the version I use. Redhat
could be done using the Sourceforge compile farm - only GNAT is not
installed there :-( - but one can allways ask for it to be installed (does
anybody know the package names?).

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

Re: The GNU Ada compiler

[Björn Persson]

Martin Krischik wrote:
> As I said before: I can only do SuSE and only the version I use. Redhat
> could be done using the Sourceforge compile farm - only GNAT is not
> installed there :-( - but one can allways ask for it to be installed (does
> anybody know the package names?).

In Fedora, GCC is divided into the packages gcc, gcc-gnat, gcc-c++, 
gcc-java, gcc-objc and gcc-gfortran, so it's gcc-gnat you want.

It looks like they have Fedora 2 for i386. That's a bit old now. I 
should be able to build packages for the latest Fedora release at each 
time, if others decide which releases should be packaged. I'll need to 
learn some more about RPM first. I may have time some time in January.

-- 
Bj�rn Persson                              PGP key A88682FD
                    omb jor ers @sv ge.
                    r o.b n.p son eri nu

Re: The GNU Ada compiler

[Martin Krischik]

Bjï¿œrn Persson wrote:

> Martin Krischik wrote:
>> As I said before: I can only do SuSE and only the version I use. Redhat
>> could be done using the Sourceforge compile farm - only GNAT is not
>> installed there :-( - but one can allways ask for it to be installed
>> (does anybody know the package names?).
 
> In Fedora, GCC is divided into the packages gcc, gcc-gnat, gcc-c++,
> gcc-java, gcc-objc and gcc-gfortran, so it's gcc-gnat you want.

I was rather thinking of the precise package names. On SuSE 10.0 they are:

gcc-ada-4.0.2_20050901-3
libada-4.0.2_20050901-3
gcc-ada-32bit-4.0.2_20050901-3
libada-32bit-4.0.2_20050901-3

And the filenames:

gcc-ada-32bit-4.0.2_20050901-3.x86_64.rpm
gcc-ada-4.0.2_20050901-3.x86_64.rpm
libada-32bit-4.0.2_20050901-3.x86_64.rpm
libada-4.0.2_20050901-3.x86_64.rpm

BTW: I googled as far that I know that Fedora has lib packages (libada,
libgnat??) as well.

> It looks like they have Fedora 2 for i386. That's a bit old now. I
> should be able to build packages for the latest Fedora release at each
> time, if others decide which releases should be packaged. I'll need to
> learn some more about RPM first. I may have time some time in January.

They also have an AMD64 based on a more modern Fedora.

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

Re: The GNU Ada compiler

[Björn Persson]

Martin Krischik wrote:
> I was rather thinking of the precise package names.

Oh! I assumed they would do something like "yum install gcc-gnat", and 
Yum would find, download and install the latest version of gcc-gnat and 
any packages it depends on (including libgnat).

For Fedora 2 that would be gcc-gnat-3.3.3-7.i386.rpm and 
libgnat-3.3.3-7.i386.rpm, which you find at 
http://download.fedora.redhat.com/pub/fedora/linux/core/2/i386/os/Fedora/RPMS/.

There doesn't seem to be a gcc-gnat for Fedora 3 on x86-64. (In Fedora 4 
there is.)

-- 
Bjï¿œrn Persson                              PGP key A88682FD
                    omb jor ers @sv ge.
                    r o.b n.p son eri nu

Re: The GNU Ada compiler

[Steve Whalen]

Martin Krischik wrote:
> Currently I concentrate much on the GNAT/GPL but I think that may change
> when gcc 4.1 is out of the door. Apart from that I monitor the download
> stats to see what is appreciated and what is waisted effort.
>
> Interestingly enough currently source-rpm are more in demand then actual
> binaries.

I'm hoping your efforts will attract maintainers for a GMGPL Ada on
each of the platforms and OS's. I know you can't do all of them by
yourself <g>....

Instead of monitoring the Ada download statistics, I'd suggest
monitoring the download statistics for gcc.  Since C and C++ are very
functional compilers within gcc but Ada is seldom present let alone
stable, I think gcc's popularity on a platform/OS gives a better
indication of where Ada _should_ be, even if it's not there now.  It's
a chicken or egg kind of thing.  Nobody is downloading the Ada
compilers because if you want gnat 3.15p it is still available in
releases from AdaCore around the net.

Nobody bothers downloading any newer GNAT release because the versions
I've come across all seem to be broken in one way or another.

Actually, since NYU is _not_ mirroring 3.15p any more, it would be
helpful if you used sourceforge to house all of the 3.15p versions, so
we would have a single place to send anyone interested in Ada.  Then
as newer versions became stable for each platform / OS combination,
you could push 3.15p down into an "older version" status.

Steve

Re: The GNU Ada compiler

[Larry Kilgallen]

In article <1135384114.865341.276730@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "Steve Whalen" <SteveWhalen001@hotmail.com> writes:
> Martin Krischik wrote:
>> Currently I concentrate much on the GNAT/GPL but I think that may change
>> when gcc 4.1 is out of the door. Apart from that I monitor the download
>> stats to see what is appreciated and what is waisted effort.
>>
>> Interestingly enough currently source-rpm are more in demand then actual
>> binaries.
> 
> I'm hoping your efforts will attract maintainers for a GMGPL Ada on
> each of the platforms and OS's.

The statement earlier seemed to be that the source available has never
worked on VMS.

Re: The GNU Ada compiler

[krischik]

NO - they will only readily install packages from the distribution
itself. They are wary of 3rd party packages less they destabilize the
system

Martin

Re: The GNU Ada compiler

[krischik]

When creating the GNAT/GCC packages I run the ACATS for good measure.
The result is available in /opt/gnat - after installation that is.
Hmmm.

As for 3.15p - I have uploaded everything I could find. I might have an
even deeper look into my archives to see if I find some more files.

Martin

Re: The GNU Ada compiler

[krischik]

Hello Larry,

Just to remind you: there where allways a "maybe". "probably" or "most
likely" in my statements about VMS.

Honestly: I don't really know, I can only guess.

Martin

Re: The GNU Ada compiler

[Steve Whalen]

krischik wrote:
...
> As for 3.15p - I have uploaded everything I could find. I might have an
> even deeper look into my archives to see if I find some more files.

Thanks. That was fast. The last time I looked I didn't see the Win32
3.15p in the sourceforge files area.

I do have one 3.15p file for windows called gnatwin-3.15p.exe that
isn't in the download section of sourceforge, but is mentioned in the
compiler description section of the Ada Programming Wiki book.
gnatwin-3.15p.exe is a win32 installation .exe for the Windows Ada
bindings and Ada Win32 DLL tools. I also have a README for the windows
version of 3.15p.

Actually, I think the Ada-Belgium ftp site
(ftp://ftp.cs.kuleuven.ac.be/pub/Ada-Belgium/mirrors/gnu-ada/3.15p/)
which is referenced in the Ada Wiki book has a couple other versions of
3.15p that aren't in your sourceforge download files area. It looks
like you could get a pretty complete copy of 3.15p versions and
associated libraries (and README's) there.

Thanks again for your work on this.

Steve

Re: The GNU Ada compiler

[krischik]

Hello Steve

The  gnatwin-3.15p.exe is there as well. Look at:

https://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=12974&package_id=173752

Currently missing are the unix operating systems.

Martin

Re: The GNU Ada compiler

[Steve Whalen]

krischik wrote:
> Currently missing are the unix operating systems.

The Ada Belgium ftp site has Sun Solaris and HP UX binaries of 3.15p
(the HP UX binary is a "contributed" binary, not from AdaCore, but the
Sun Solaris I believe is from AdaCore).

Are there other Unix flavors of 3.15p that AdaCore released that you
know of? I'm afraid on the machines I have access to at the moment, I
only have copies of things that are on the Ada Belgium site.

Steve

Re: The GNU Ada compiler

[Craig Carey]

On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 16:07:57 +0100, Ludovic Brenta wrote:
>"Steve Whalen" <SteveWhalen001@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> In particular for proselytizing Ada, stable GMGPL Ada compilers need
>> to be available for Windows (Ming and cygwin), Redhat, SUSE,
>> Mandrake, and Solaris.
>
>I agree wholeheartedly.  For Windows, there are already two binary
>distributions of GNAT under GMGPL: AIDE[1], and MinGW[2].  I have
>tried neither of them
...


The GNAT GPL compiler of http://libre.adacore.com/
  gnat-gpl-2005-pentium-mingw32msv-bin.exe.zip (libre.act-europe.fr),

is curiously slow:about 9 times slower, or worse.

When I compile 53 Ada files then I get these timing results:

  (1) GNAT 3.15p for NT :  1min42sec, 1m34s. The average = 98 secs.
   The output file "tp-model2.o" is of size 1.12 MB.

  (2) The new AdaCore GNAT GPL 2005 compiler: 14 minutes 10 seconds
   (=850 secs)
   The output file "tp-model2.o" is of size 1.55 MB, which is 38.55%
   larger.

So the new AdaCore compiler was measured to be 8.67 times slower.

Evidently the GPL 'unusable' gets extremely slow on large files.

My big files in the test are automatically generated by a modified
AdaGOOP system (which allows free-form recurse parsing of the
syntax tree instead of having a case statement inside of a loop).

AdaGOOP:
   http://www.martincarlisle.com/ada_stuff.html
   http://tope.tigris.org/

Probably the AdaCore Ada compiler can't actually compile its own source
code, when run in Windows. I justify that by noting that my
tp-model2.adb file (the largest in the test) is 133kb big and 4136
lines, and GNAT has about 32 *.adb files that having sizes from 136 kb
to 538 kb, with a median being about 205 kb.

The GPL compiler is expected to be worse if the optimization
level was changed from -O0 to -O2. I noted that MinGW GNAT spent much
more time optimizing than compiling on large files , and it seems that
the size goes up 38% (but I didn't discover if the FSF programmers
had made their optimizer faster instead of slower).

Another way that might validly get the GPL compiler to produce a
slower result, could be to take advantage of the new "limited with"
feature. However perhaps the code for GNAT 3.15 is using child packages
(and conversions on pointers), which is seemingly similar and slow.

Ther GCC programmers really don't seem to want to make AdaCore's
commercial Ada compilers to go faster. I doubt they actually know why
the compiler is running slowly; it is more about groups of opposing
issues (tradeoffs, rather than the 'always do timing tests' advocacy
that GPL opposing FreeBSD programmers familiarize themselves with).


>[1] http://stephane.rochebrune.org/aide/aide.html
>[2] http://www.mingw.org
>[3] http://www.blastwave.org
>[4] http://www.canoedissent.org.uk/ss/type.jsp?c=prog
>[5] http://www.freebsd.org
...

>FreeBSD[5] seems not to be very active WRT Ada, but there are ports
>for gnat 3.15p, asis and glade.  The ports for GCC 3.4.4, 4.0.3, 4.1.0
>and 4.2.0 (the latter three being works in progress) lack Ada support.
>I am quite confident that FreeBSD's GCC maintainer would gratefully
>accept patches to enable Ada on that platform.

FreeBSD has had dead Ada ports and ideally that port would be deleted
if it does not run. The FreeBSD Gvd port got deleted recently.

Years ago Mr Tardieu (in France) privately said he was using a native
FreeBSD compiler and I guess he used select statements for IO otherwise
tasks don't run. Alternatively the FreeBSD Ada port has been debugged,
and it might involve few changes.

However FreeBSD is probably a serious alternative to Linux once the
Linux Ada compiler is run under the emulator:
http://ijs.co.nz/code/ada95-freebsd-gnat-under-linuxulator.htm

--

A Russian ftp filesearching engine (named at the metasearch site,
http://www.astalavista.com/), found these ftp sites that hold
copies of the 2002 GNAT 3.15p compiler:

** ftp://ftp.dit.upm.es/mirrors/cs.nyu.edu/pub/gnat/3.15p/winnt/
** ftp://ftp.laas.fr/pub/tsf/agnan/Installeposte/

I was reading the GCC mailing list and I guess the community of
GCC developers don't know why the compiler is slow, and are quite
competent at talking about unavoidable difficult trade-offs while
not knowing where the bugs are. At one time they tried to blame
the boehm garbage collector. Sending up huge CVS patches and
resolving to never back out, marked on quantum deterioration.

Mr Dewar hopefully noted that the colourizing algorithms for
optimizing register use was a strict/hopeful/etc need that had a
capability of possibly justifying a slower compiler. Perhaps the
original text was too brief.




Craig Carey

Re: The GNU Ada compiler

[Pascal Obry]

Craig Carey a �crit :
> When I compile 53 Ada files then I get these timing results:
> 
>   (1) GNAT 3.15p for NT :  1min42sec, 1m34s. The average = 98 secs.
>    The output file "tp-model2.o" is of size 1.12 MB.
> 
>   (2) The new AdaCore GNAT GPL 2005 compiler: 14 minutes 10 seconds
>    (=850 secs)
>    The output file "tp-model2.o" is of size 1.55 MB, which is 38.55%
>    larger.

I can't comment about the timing, but note that 3.15p is based on GCC
2.8.1 where GNAT GPL is based on GCC 3.x. The new GCC backend is known
to be slower, but also to generate better optimized code.

Pascal.

-- 

--|------------------------------------------------------
--| Pascal Obry                           Team-Ada Member
--| 45, rue Gabriel Peri - 78114 Magny Les Hameaux FRANCE
--|------------------------------------------------------
--|              http://www.obry.net
--| "The best way to travel is by means of imagination"
--|
--| gpg --keyserver wwwkeys.pgp.net --recv-key C1082595

Re: The GNU Ada compiler

[Georg Bauhaus]

Craig Carey wrote:


> The GNAT GPL compiler of http://libre.adacore.com/
>   gnat-gpl-2005-pentium-mingw32msv-bin.exe.zip (libre.act-europe.fr),
> 
> is curiously slow:about 9 times slower, or worse.

I get ratios 8/14 and 8/30 on the average when comparing 3.15p with 3.4.5
(GNAT GPL 2005) and 3.15p with a 4.1 FSF GNAT from Ausgust this year,
compiling a recursive descent parser.

Part of the speed difference is probably due to --enable-checking
in non-release compilers (the 4.1 case).

Have you compared execution speeds of the executables produced?


-- Georg 

Re: The GNU Ada compiler

[Marco]

" new Homepage will follow soon and until then you can just look at the

project page:
https://sourceforge.net/projects/gnuada
"

link seems to be bad (at least today)

this worked:
https://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=12974

Re: The GNU Ada compiler

[Jeffrey Creem]

Marco wrote:
> " new Homepage will follow soon and until then you can just look at the
> 
> project page:
> https://sourceforge.net/projects/gnuada
> "
> 
> link seems to be bad (at least today)
> 
> this worked:
> https://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=12974
> 

Staffing at sourceforge is low this week and I have been having 
intermittant problems for the last few days with all SF related sites.

Re: The GNU Ada compiler

[Martin Krischik]

Marco wrote:

> " new Homepage will follow soon and until then you can just look at the

Well the homepage is now online:

http://gnuada.sourceforge.net/pmwiki.php/Main/HomePage

> project page:
> https://sourceforge.net/projects/gnuada
> "
> 
> link seems to be bad (at least today)

SoureForge has some problems currently so there are a lot of "maintainace"
to on.

Martin

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

Re: The GNU Ada compiler

[Craig Carey]

On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 19:37:24 +0100, Georg Bauhaus wrote:
>Craig Carey wrote:
>> The GNAT GPL compiler of http://libre.adacore.com/
>>   gnat-gpl-2005-pentium-mingw32msv-bin.exe.zip (libre.act-europe.fr),
>> 
>> is curiously slow:about 9 times slower, or worse.
>
>I get ratios 8/14 and 8/30 on the average when comparing 3.15p with 3.4.5
>(GNAT GPL 2005) and 3.15p with a 4.1 FSF GNAT from August this year,
>compiling a recursive descent parser.

Rewriting that leads to:
(1) FSF GCC 4.1 is 3.75 slower (=30/8) than GNAT 3.15p;
(2) AdaCore GPL GNAT 2005 is 1.75 times slower (14/8) than GNAT 3.15p.

If not in Windows then please say so.

>Part of the speed difference is probably due to --enable-checking
>in non-release compilers (the 4.1 case).

That enables assert statemnts and maybe the effect is not over 10%.

A possible legal consequence of the actions of AdaCore is that
corporations may delete the AdaCore GPL (GNU Public licence) and
throw it away.

In some countries a High Court prosecution of a copyright violator
may only seek a compensation equal to the harm. Unless the law in
New Zealand was changed, then such is the law here. Becuase
corporate end users would be better off using the old GNAT 3.15p
compiler, and it was free, and the standard of the compilers got
too low and might be getting worse, then companies could use the
newest compilers and jettison the licences.

If AdaCore could argue that the profits of those end-users (that
(lawfully) violate its GPL) are too high compared to its own, then
a court could be skeptical. For example, there is a large amount of
evidence at gcc help showing that the leader of Ada preferred to
avoid the outcome more than he preferred to accept it.

The FSF seems to have 2 laywers on its board of directors:

   http://www.fsf.org/about/leadership.html


>Have you compared execution speeds of the executables produced?

I suppose I could compare the sizes under the theory that everything
is much worse in Windows but GNAT 4 is unlikely to build in Windows.

Maybe GNAT for Windows XP could be cross compiled on an OC Systems
OS/390.

I only tested 53 files in my last test, since the AdaCore compiler
crashed. The version 3 Windows compiler and very likely, version 4
too, is going to be unusable. A 

A test could be done where a single *.adb file is increasingly
lengthened by adding procedures that are not nested but that call
each other. It seems that the size of the object file and the compile
times, rise too steeply. A problem is that the C++-ishy GCC backend
is a slave getting repeatedly called and so it lacks an ability to
cause the probably hyper-linear blowout speeds in the size of the *.o
object files (and also compile times) that is suspected.

I could retest as Mr Obry said, but the compiler is on the way out.

However I quite agree with Mr Obry that the formality of producing
the figures needing to show that, is proper. Alternatively the
USAFA's Mr Carlisle (and the DoD owning over 120 millions lines of
Ada code) could be told to cut up those really *big* files (110 KB
or more).






Craig 

Re: The GNU Ada compiler

[Jeffrey Creem]

Craig Carey wrote:
** All real text deleted
(Reader's Digest version...New versions of GNAT are slower than old 
versions and therefore...umm...GPL GPL..Donkey Donkey. Fish?)
** All real text deleted



....I am never quite sure what the purpose is of these semi-annual 
rants.... I am still trying to figure out how to rearrange the letters 
in Craig Carey to spell Greg Aharonian.


Actually that is not fair. I used to understand what Greg's point was...

The first time  (several months ago) I thought I had just walked into 
the middle of a thread that was from another group. Then I figured he 
was just a troll.

Now, I am pretty sure he really is trying to say something useful...Just 
not sure what yet.

Re: The GNU Ada compiler

[healyzh]

Simon Clubley <clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-earth.ufp> wrote:
> In article <sGdW48rcHxe0@eisner.encompasserve.org>, Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) writes:
> > In article <1691618.MhViCBI7GN@linux1.krischik.com>, Martin Krischik <krischik@users.sourceforge.net> writes:
> >> There are 700kb worth of special changes to the standart GCC in order to
> >> make GNAT work pleasantly on OpenVMS. So just compiling a standart GCC on
> >> OpenVMS might not be enough to have an well working Ada on OpenVMS.
> > 
> > So the GNAT which is on the publically accessible source repository
> > does not represent something that _ever_ worked on VMS ?

> This was the impression that I had started to develop after trying to build
> it on VMS, but I could never get the compiler actually built in order to
> test it.

> The build sequence hung the GNV version of the GNU tools available from HP,
> and it appears that ACT use their own version of the GNU tools.

The only publically available version of GNAT for OpenVMS that I'm aware of
is GNAT312P-OPENVMS7_1-19990629.EXE;1 as that is what is installed on my
system.

Add me to the list of people that would like to see a modern free version of
GNAT for OpenVMS.  I'd also like to see one for IRIX (SGI's Unix).

		Zane

Re: The GNU Ada compiler

[Martin Krischik]

Hello,

would you upload that version to the SourceForge project?

Better an old version then no version at all.

Martin

Re: The GNU Ada compiler

[Dirk Craeynest]

In article <1137740240.038113.74390@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
Martin Krischik <krischik@users.sourceforge.net> wrote:
>would you upload that version to the SourceForge project?
>Better an old version then no version at all.

The 3.12p GNAT for VMS version that your refer to is still available
on the Ada-Belgium ftp server.

As posted here in October 2005 after a similar request
(cf. article <dj0n83$379$1@heli.cs.kuleuven.ac.be>):

---------------------
In article <VcBB9HY$OkFn@eisner.encompasserve.org>,
Simon Clubley <clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> wrote:
[...]
>For example, an old version, 3.12p, was available for VMS Alpha at:
>       ftp://ftp.cs.nyu.edu/pub/gnat/private/old/openvms/
>That directory no longer exists.

A copy is and will remain available on the Ada-Belgium ftp archive at
<ftp://ftp.cs.kuleuven.be/pub/Ada-Belgium/mirrors/gnu-ada/OLD/3.12p/openvms/>
---------------------

Hope this helps.

Dirk
Dirk.Craeynest@cs.kuleuven.be (for Ada-Belgium/-Europe/SIGAda/WG9 mail)

+-------------/  Home: http://www.cs.kuleuven.be/~dirk/ada-belgium
|Ada-Belgium /    FTP: ftp://ftp.cs.kuleuven.be/pub/Ada-Belgium
|on Internet/  E-mail: ada-belgium-board@cs.kuleuven.be
+----------/ Maillist: ada-belgium-info-request@cs.kuleuven.be

*** 11th Intl.Conf.on Reliable Software Technologies - Ada-Europe'2006
*** June 5-9, 2006 ** Porto, Portugal ** http://www.ada-europe.org ***

Re: The GNU Ada compiler

[Martin Krischik]

Dirk Craeynest wrote:

Thanks, I added it to SourceForge as well:

http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=12974&package_id=11136

Martin

> In article <1137740240.038113.74390@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> Martin Krischik <krischik@users.sourceforge.net> wrote:
>>would you upload that version to the SourceForge project?
>>Better an old version then no version at all.
> 
> The 3.12p GNAT for VMS version that your refer to is still available
> on the Ada-Belgium ftp server.
> 
> As posted here in October 2005 after a similar request
> (cf. article <dj0n83$379$1@heli.cs.kuleuven.ac.be>):
> 
> ---------------------
> In article <VcBB9HY$OkFn@eisner.encompasserve.org>,
> Simon Clubley <clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> wrote:
> [...]
>>For example, an old version, 3.12p, was available for VMS Alpha at:
>>       ftp://ftp.cs.nyu.edu/pub/gnat/private/old/openvms/
>>That directory no longer exists.
> 
> A copy is and will remain available on the Ada-Belgium ftp archive at
>
<ftp://ftp.cs.kuleuven.be/pub/Ada-Belgium/mirrors/gnu-ada/OLD/3.12p/openvms/>
> ---------------------
> 
> Hope this helps.
> 
> Dirk
> Dirk.Craeynest@cs.kuleuven.be (for Ada-Belgium/-Europe/SIGAda/WG9 mail)
> 
> +-------------/  Home: http://www.cs.kuleuven.be/~dirk/ada-belgium
> |Ada-Belgium /    FTP: ftp://ftp.cs.kuleuven.be/pub/Ada-Belgium
> |on Internet/  E-mail: ada-belgium-board@cs.kuleuven.be
> +----------/ Maillist: ada-belgium-info-request@cs.kuleuven.be
> 
> *** 11th Intl.Conf.on Reliable Software Technologies - Ada-Europe'2006
> *** June 5-9, 2006 ** Porto, Portugal ** http://www.ada-europe.org ***

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