Mixing Cygnus & Gnat compilers on the same machine

Mixing Cygnus & Gnat compilers on the same machine

[Marin David Condic]

I've got a version of the GNU compiler installed on a PC. This is a compiler
supplied by Cygnus and compiles C/C++ to a MIPS embedded processor. I would
like to install the GNAT compiler for the WinNT/PC platform as well.
However, I really hesitate since I fear there will be Registry changes or
collisions on directories or search paths or similar problems that will kill
my Cygnus gcc installation. I could find this out the hard way - install
GNAT and see what broke - or I could try the easy way first. Has anybody
done anything similar to this? Is there an easy way to have both compilers
resident on the same machine and not turn my life into a living hell for the
next week or two?

MDC
--
Marin David Condic
Senior Software Engineer
Pace Micro Technology Americas    www.pacemicro.com
Enabling the digital revolution
e-Mail:    marin.condic@pacemicro.com
Web:      http://www.mcondic.com/

Re: Mixing Cygnus & Gnat compilers on the same machine

[Simon Wright]

"Marin David Condic" <marin.condic.auntie.spam@pacemicro.com> writes:

> I've got a version of the GNU compiler installed on a PC. This is a
> compiler supplied by Cygnus and compiles C/C++ to a MIPS embedded
> processor. I would like to install the GNAT compiler for the
> WinNT/PC platform as well.  However, I really hesitate since I fear
> there will be Registry changes or collisions on directories or
> search paths or similar problems that will kill my Cygnus gcc
> installation. I could find this out the hard way - install GNAT and
> see what broke - or I could try the easy way first. Has anybody done
> anything similar to this? Is there an easy way to have both
> compilers resident on the same machine and not turn my life into a
> living hell for the next week or two?

I've used my front-end at http://www.pushface.org/gnatfe/ with a
Cygwin installation + GNATworks, no problems yet (but really, the only
actual need was in order to support gnatchop ..)

Re: Mixing Cygnus & Gnat compilers on the same machine

[Gerhard Häring]

Marin David Condic wrote:
> 
> I've got a version of the GNU compiler installed on a PC. This is a compiler
> supplied by Cygnus and compiles C/C++ to a MIPS embedded processor. I would
> like to install the GNAT compiler for the WinNT/PC platform as well.
> However, I really hesitate since I fear there will be Registry changes or
> collisions on directories or search paths or similar problems that will kill
> my Cygnus gcc installation. I could find this out the hard way - install
> GNAT and see what broke - or I could try the easy way first. Has anybody
> done anything similar to this? Is there an easy way to have both compilers
> resident on the same machine and not turn my life into a living hell for the
> next week or two?

I have both the GNAT 3.13p compiler and a Cygnus compiler installed.
There is one only thing you must not forget: Whichever compiler you want
to use, put it at the front of the PATH. I have Cygnus GCC at the front
of the PATH. If I want to use GNAT, I have to do

SET PATH=D:\ADA\GNAT\BIN;%PATH% or
export PATH=//d/Ada/GNAT/bin:$PATH

depending on which shell I happen to use. Everything is working fine
then :-)

Gerhard
-- 
Sorry for the fake email, please use the real one below to reply.
contact: g e r h a r d @ b i g f o o t . d e
web:     http://highqualdev.com

Re: Mixing Cygnus & Gnat compilers on the same machine

[Marin David Condic]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1365 bytes --]

Thanks. That makes a certain amount of sense as long as no Registry entries
get changed. (Any searches will follow the PATH environment variable to
whatever executables & libraries are needed.)

I noticed that in your example, you have GNAT on a drive labeled "D". (Usual
installation being to the "C" drive, naturally.) Is it necessary to have
them both on different drives? Or is this just a case of the way it happened
to end up in your environment?

MDC
--
Marin David Condic
Senior Software Engineer
Pace Micro Technology Americas    www.pacemicro.com
Enabling the digital revolution
e-Mail:    marin.condic@pacemicro.com
Web:      http://www.mcondic.com/


"Gerhard H�ring" <gerhard.nospam@bigfoot.de> wrote in message
news:3ADDEEAA.D8F16935@bigfoot.de...
> I have both the GNAT 3.13p compiler and a Cygnus compiler installed.
> There is one only thing you must not forget: Whichever compiler you want
> to use, put it at the front of the PATH. I have Cygnus GCC at the front
> of the PATH. If I want to use GNAT, I have to do
>
> SET PATH=D:\ADA\GNAT\BIN;%PATH% or
> export PATH=//d/Ada/GNAT/bin:$PATH
>
> depending on which shell I happen to use. Everything is working fine
> then :-)
>
> Gerhard
> --
> Sorry for the fake email, please use the real one below to reply.
> contact: g e r h a r d @ b i g f o o t . d e
> web:     http://highqualdev.com

Re: Mixing Cygnus & Gnat compilers on the same machine

[Gerhard Häring]

Marin David Condic wrote:
> 
> Thanks. That makes a certain amount of sense as long as no Registry entries
> get changed. (Any searches will follow the PATH environment variable to
> whatever executables & libraries are needed.)
> 
> I noticed that in your example, you have GNAT on a drive labeled "D". (Usual
> installation being to the "C" drive, naturally.) Is it necessary to have
> them both on different drives? Or is this just a case of the way it happened
> to end up in your environment?

The drives do not matter. It's just a matter of having to currently
preferred software 1st in the path, so that the correct gcc gets called.

Btw. the GNAT distribution from the Ada for Linux people have called
GNAT's gcc "gnatgcc" for a reason. On FreeBSD, it's called "adagcc". The
purpose of this is to avoid collisions with the "normal" gcc (usually
2.95.2 vs. GNAT's 2.8.1). IMHO it would be wise for the ACT folks to
adopt this, as they are likely to be a at least on revision behind wrt
the main gcc release.

Gerhard
-- 
Sorry for the fake email, please use the real one below to reply.
contact: g e r h a r d @ b i g f o o t . d e
web:     http://highqualdev.com

Re: Mixing Cygnus & Gnat compilers on the same machine

[David Starner]

On Thu, 19 Apr 2001 04:18:43 +0200, Gerhard =?iso-8859-1?Q?H=E4ring?= <gerhard.nospam@bigfoot.de> wrote:
> IMHO it would be wise for the ACT folks to
> adopt this, as they are likely to be a at least on revision behind wrt
> the main gcc release.

As of GCC 3.1, GNAT should be an integrated component of GCC and get
released with the GCC release. I suspect there will be an interm 
release of GNAT on GCC 3.0/3.1CVS before it actually gets released with
GCC. 

-- 
David Starner - dstarner98@aasaa.ofe.org
Pointless website: http://dvdeug.dhis.org
"I don't care if Bill personally has my name and reads my email and 
laughs at me. In fact, I'd be rather honored." - Joseph_Greg

Re: Mixing Cygnus & Gnat compilers on the same machine

[Larry Kilgallen]

In article <3ADE4B03.68BA6651@bigfoot.de>, Gerhard =?iso-8859-1?Q?H=E4ring?= <gerhard.nospam@bigfoot.de> writes:
> Marin David Condic wrote:
>> 
>> Thanks. That makes a certain amount of sense as long as no Registry entries
>> get changed. (Any searches will follow the PATH environment variable to
>> whatever executables & libraries are needed.)
>> 
>> I noticed that in your example, you have GNAT on a drive labeled "D". (Usual
>> installation being to the "C" drive, naturally.) Is it necessary to have
>> them both on different drives? Or is this just a case of the way it happened
>> to end up in your environment?
> 
> The drives do not matter. It's just a matter of having to currently
> preferred software 1st in the path, so that the correct gcc gets called.
> 
> Btw. the GNAT distribution from the Ada for Linux people have called
> GNAT's gcc "gnatgcc" for a reason. On FreeBSD, it's called "adagcc". The
> purpose of this is to avoid collisions with the "normal" gcc (usually
> 2.95.2 vs. GNAT's 2.8.1). IMHO it would be wise for the ACT folks to
> adopt this, as they are likely to be a at least on revision behind wrt
> the main gcc release.

In the long run the main gcc release will have GNAT included, right ?
Unless one absolutely requires the "very latest" GNAT, there should be
no need for multiple versions.

Re: Mixing Cygnus & Gnat compilers on the same machine

[Marin David Condic]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1566 bytes --]

Until such time as GNAT is merged with the "normal" gcc distribution*, it
would be very handy to make sure that the two compilers don't collide in any
way. There are languages supported with gcc (C++, most notably) that aren't
supported in GNAT, so one might want to have both compilers available. (That
and my gcc compiler is targeted to a Mips machine & I want GNAT for the
PC/NT platform) Maybe someone is listening? :-)

I've found the Cygnus installation stuff here, so I can get back to where I
was if something hoses up. I believe I will attempt the install and see what
I break. If anything unusual happens, I'll report back here.

*(Will this ever happen? Ada being part of the regular gcc distribution,
that is. It would seem like it would be putting Ada in front of lots more
people - don't know what that may do so the ACT business model, though...)

MDC
--
Marin David Condic
Senior Software Engineer
Pace Micro Technology Americas    www.pacemicro.com
Enabling the digital revolution
e-Mail:    marin.condic@pacemicro.com
Web:      http://www.mcondic.com/


"Gerhard H�ring" <gerhard.nospam@bigfoot.de> wrote in message
news:3ADE4B03.68BA6651@bigfoot.de...
> Btw. the GNAT distribution from the Ada for Linux people have called
> GNAT's gcc "gnatgcc" for a reason. On FreeBSD, it's called "adagcc". The
> purpose of this is to avoid collisions with the "normal" gcc (usually
> 2.95.2 vs. GNAT's 2.8.1). IMHO it would be wise for the ACT folks to
> adopt this, as they are likely to be a at least on revision behind wrt
> the main gcc release.
>

Re: Mixing Cygnus & Gnat compilers on the same machine

[Marin David Condic]

Well, there may be bleeding-edge customers of ACT that would want early
releases, but they'd probably have bigger troubles than worrying about where
to house two versions of the compiler. (Not to mention that for something of
that magnitude, they'd easily be able to simply provide two development
platforms and be done with it.) The hobbyist and/or student might be in a
substantially different position & couldn't dedicate resources to two
compiler versions. But that kind of need probably won't demand the latest,
greatest release the instant it becomes available anyway, so it may be a
non-issue. (I think GNAT is stable enough that I personally could work
around whatever weaknesses it had & wouldn't be counting on the latest
release.)

The big advantage I would have with a common GNAT/gcc would be that the
Cygnus compiler would suddenly start translating Ada code for my Mips
embedded processor - making it possible to substitute Ada where now C
exists. But I'd expect it would take a good long time for that to migrate
into my PC here at work...

MDC
--
Marin David Condic
Senior Software Engineer
Pace Micro Technology Americas    www.pacemicro.com
Enabling the digital revolution
e-Mail:    marin.condic@pacemicro.com
Web:      http://www.mcondic.com/


"Larry Kilgallen" <Kilgallen@eisner.decus.org.nospam> wrote in message
news:NuUw1ibARNZ4@eisner.encompasserve.org...
> In article <3ADE4B03.68BA6651@bigfoot.de>, Gerhard
=?iso-8859-1?Q?H=E4ring?= <gerhard.nospam@bigfoot.de> writes:
>
> In the long run the main gcc release will have GNAT included, right ?
> Unless one absolutely requires the "very latest" GNAT, there should be
> no need for multiple versions.

Re: Mixing Cygnus & Gnat compilers on the same machine

[Marin David Condic]

Just in case you're ever on a quiz show and the emcee asks you about running
Cygnus with Gnat....... :-)

I installed the Gnat 3.13p I got in the latest "Ada Letters" disk (ASE02_02)
using the gnat-3.13p-nt.exe executable. For reasons I do not understand nor
care to explore too deeply (since everything is fine!) the customary Gnat
commands were not recognized. So I created a batch file with the line:

SET PATH=C:\GNAT\BIN;C:\GNAT\LIB;C:\GNAT\Bindings\Win32Ada;%PATH%

(Don't know if it is going to use the PATH variable to search for bindings.
Oh well, it doesn't cost much!)

Anyway, from here I was able to compile and link your garden variety "Hello
World" program and everything was fine. I don't know off the top of my head
if I need to be executing any other batch files or similar things to
accomplish full visibility of everything Gnat may ever want - I suppose I
should RTFM - but I could apparently find no additional "setup" sorts of
things to do. Maybe someone else knows the answer to that one?

As for Cygnus, apparently all of their search path stuff is being set up by
similar batch files I'm executing when I start up a command line to use
BASH. So depending on where I start my MS-DOS window & which .bat's I
execute, everything seems to be fine.

Now I've not tested very thoroughly, so I expect there could be trouble down
the road in searching for libraries of things, etc. But at least both
compilers will execute and compile code without interfering with each other.

Hope this helps others.....

MDC
--
Marin David Condic
Senior Software Engineer
Pace Micro Technology Americas    www.pacemicro.com
Enabling the digital revolution
e-Mail:    marin.condic@pacemicro.com
Web:      http://www.mcondic.com/


"Marin David Condic" <marin.condic.auntie.spam@pacemicro.com> wrote in
message news:9bmphh$1jt$1@nh.pace.co.uk...
>
> I've found the Cygnus installation stuff here, so I can get back to where
I
> was if something hoses up. I believe I will attempt the install and see
what
> I break. If anything unusual happens, I'll report back here.
>

Re: Mixing Cygnus & Gnat compilers on the same machine

[Marc A. Criley]

Marin David Condic wrote:
> 
> Until such time as GNAT is merged with the "normal" gcc distribution*, it
>
  <snip>
> 
> *(Will this ever happen? Ada being part of the regular gcc distribution,
> that is. It would seem like it would be putting Ada in front of lots more
> people - don't know what that may do so the ACT business model, though...)

ACT is actively involved in making this happen.  And I think ACT would
be hard-pressed to find a downside to putting the product on which their
business is based in front of a much wider audience :-)  (Unless it were
to engender a competing GNAT support company.)

Marc A. Criley
Senior Staff Engineer
Quadrus Corporation
www.quadruscorp.com

Re: Mixing Cygnus & Gnat compilers on the same machine

[Marin David Condic]

Well, that's kind of where my thinking was going. On the one hand, you get
the Ada front-end out in front of a whole bunch of people who otherwise may
never have heard of Ada or at least had no inclination to ever play with it.
You also get a large proliferation of back-ends that might otherwise not
have been supported. (Such as in my case where I have an embedded Mips
already using gcc - now I've got Ada as an alternative...) The pie gets
substantially wider and starts creating an environment bigger than the sum
of its parts. (Dare I use the words "synergy" or "critical mass"? Will I get
points on my Bulls**t Bingo card? :-) Offering someone a compiler that can
process N languages into code for M targets becomes a more valuable asset as
N and M get bigger. (Will ACT start supporting C++ and get accused of
selling out?)

On the other hand, your once monolithic product now has to "play nice with
others". You don't automatically get everything you want done to the gcc
implementation unless you're willing to once again diverge from the crowd
and go your own way. Because your front-end is now just a small part of a
much bigger product, companies that otherwise might not have had any reason
to compete with you suddenly might. (Cygnus automatically having the Ada
front-end bundled into their compiler might now be in a position to offer
support to ACT customers they might have otherwise ignored.) Competition
reduces margins and (while the consumer wins) the producer's life gets
harder. Sure, anybody could pick up the Gnat code and start supporting it if
they wanted to, but there are a lot of barriers to doing so. Once its
integrated with gcc, some of those barriers come down.

From *my* perspective, I'd really want the integration to happen. (Although
the time scales might never be attractive!) From the perspective of ACT (or
any other supplier, for that matter) I could imagine reasons why this might
not be something one would want to do. It depends on where you think you'll
make your gains to offset the losses. Do you make enough from
selling/supporting related tools that *aren't* part of gcc that you make up
for the customers who may get their support elsewhere? Are your tools &
services of sufficient added value that other competitors can't match them
any time soon? Does the wider market let you steal away business you
otherwise wouldn't go for? Can your marketing, sales and support
infrastructure actually handle a big increase in (potential) customers? I'm
only bringing these things up to observe that it isn't a foregone conclusion
that integrating with the Gnu gcc is automatically a benefit to ACT.

MDC
--
Marin David Condic
Senior Software Engineer
Pace Micro Technology Americas    www.pacemicro.com
Enabling the digital revolution
e-Mail:    marin.condic@pacemicro.com
Web:      http://www.mcondic.com/


"Marc A. Criley" <mcqada@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3ADF3498.37521D1B@earthlink.net...

> ACT is actively involved in making this happen.  And I think ACT would
> be hard-pressed to find a downside to putting the product on which their
> business is based in front of a much wider audience :-)  (Unless it were
> to engender a competing GNAT support company.)
>

Re: Mixing Cygnus & Gnat compilers on the same machine

[Ben Brosgol]

Below is Robert Dewar's response to some of Marin's comments in this thread.

Ben Brosgol
Ada Core Technologies
brosgol@gnat.com

=====================================
First, there is no problem in having g++ and gnat compilers on the same
machine, many of our customers are using such a setup to compile mixed
language programs.

Second, Marin said:

> Will this ever happen? Ada being part of the regular gcc distribution,
> that is. It would seem like it would be putting Ada in front of lots more
> people - don't know what that may do so the ACT business model, though...)

Read the gcc mailing list archives to know more about the plans and progress
here. I am not sure what the reference to the ACT business model is about,
we don't see it as having any significant relevance. Our typical customers
are definitely not interested in building their own unsupported untested
versions of GNAT from source using the latest snapshots. The purpose of
including GNAT in the gcc releases is multi-fold, most notably it means that
it is easier for GCC developers to ensure that their changes do not
discombobulate GNAT. As to whether it will put Ada in front of lots more
people, not so clear, remember that the gcc site only distributes sources,
not binaries. So someone has to build binaries and make them available, just
as is the case now.

> The big advantage I would have with a common GNAT/gcc would be that the
> Cygnus compiler would suddenly start translating Ada code for my Mips
> embedded processor - making it possible to substitute Ada where now C
> exists. But I'd expect it would take a good long time for that to migrate
> into my PC here at work...

This is a significant misconception. GNAT will only work on targets to which
it has been ported, just as is the case now, Marin seems to think some magic
will occur that will automatically generate working GNAT's on all machines
for which gcc ports exist, but that obviously is not the case.

Robert Dewar
Ada Core Technologies

Re: Mixing Cygnus & Gnat compilers on the same machine

[Marin David Condic]

Thanks for the response.

As for the business model - I think I hit that at other points. It isn't
intended as a criticism - just an observation that if the Ada part of gcc
gets more widely spread, it changes the game somewhat and it isn't obvious
that this is necessarily good for any particular players. It may very well
be, but there could be downsides to it depending on how one wanted to
structure their business strategy.

As for my apparent misconception about how Gnat would potentially move to
different platforms, let me ask this: If Gnat and gcc merge, doesn't that
mean that the Ada front end is now hooked to the normally distributed gcc
back end? I noticed on the web site for gcc
(http://www.gnu.org/software/gcc/gcc.html) that they talk about front ends
for a variety of languages and my understanding was that the various front
ends are - or could be - built together much as Gnat will translate Ada or
C. (or Cygnus will translate C or C++) Maybe it requires some additional
tinkering to get the front ends connected and operating together? I'd
anticipate that not every machine dependency would automatically get
resolved and that there would be bugs, but it seems logical that if the Ada
front end makes the same intermediate code as the C front end (or Fortran
front end or Java front end...) the common back end ought to more or less
continue to do its job.

Anyway, I wasn't expecting that some kind of magic would occur and the whole
world would change overnight. Just that if the Gnat stuff is merged with
gcc, the odds of getting those things integrated in the compiler I use for
my embedded target improve dramatically. (Sort of like your odds of winning
the lottery going up dramatically the instant you buy the ticket. :-)
Clearly, someone has to pick up the pieces and compile them together (and do
the required testing & debugging!) but that would seem like a thing that
would be profitable to do. More front ends + more hosts + more targets =
more potential customers. (Last time I looked at Green Hills, their compiler
was doing that sort of thing...)

MDC
--
Marin David Condic
Senior Software Engineer
Pace Micro Technology Americas    www.pacemicro.com
Enabling the digital revolution
e-Mail:    marin.condic@pacemicro.com
Web:      http://www.mcondic.com/


"Ben Brosgol" <brosgol@world.std.com> wrote in message
news:GC2EDt.28x@world.std.com...
> Below is Robert Dewar's response to some of Marin's comments in this
thread.
>
> Ben Brosgol
> Ada Core Technologies
> brosgol@gnat.com
>
> =====================================
> First, there is no problem in having g++ and gnat compilers on the same
> machine, many of our customers are using such a setup to compile mixed
> language programs.
>
> Second, Marin said:
>
> > Will this ever happen? Ada being part of the regular gcc distribution,
> > that is. It would seem like it would be putting Ada in front of lots
more
> > people - don't know what that may do so the ACT business model,
though...)
>
> Read the gcc mailing list archives to know more about the plans and
progress
> here. I am not sure what the reference to the ACT business model is about,
> we don't see it as having any significant relevance. Our typical customers
> are definitely not interested in building their own unsupported untested
> versions of GNAT from source using the latest snapshots. The purpose of
> including GNAT in the gcc releases is multi-fold, most notably it means
that
> it is easier for GCC developers to ensure that their changes do not
> discombobulate GNAT. As to whether it will put Ada in front of lots more
> people, not so clear, remember that the gcc site only distributes sources,
> not binaries. So someone has to build binaries and make them available,
just
> as is the case now.
>
> > The big advantage I would have with a common GNAT/gcc would be that the
> > Cygnus compiler would suddenly start translating Ada code for my Mips
> > embedded processor - making it possible to substitute Ada where now C
> > exists. But I'd expect it would take a good long time for that to
migrate
> > into my PC here at work...
>
> This is a significant misconception. GNAT will only work on targets to
which
> it has been ported, just as is the case now, Marin seems to think some
magic
> will occur that will automatically generate working GNAT's on all machines
> for which gcc ports exist, but that obviously is not the case.
>
> Robert Dewar
> Ada Core Technologies
>
>
>

Re: Mixing Cygnus & Gnat compilers on the same machine

[Jean-Pierre Rosen]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 995 bytes --]


"Marin David Condic" <marin.condic.auntie.spam@pacemicro.com> a �crit dans
le message news: 9bpfgk$1gb$1@nh.pace.co.uk...
> As for my apparent misconception about how Gnat would potentially move to
> different platforms, let me ask this: If Gnat and gcc merge, doesn't that
> mean that the Ada front end is now hooked to the normally distributed gcc
> back end? I noticed on the web site for gcc
> (http://www.gnu.org/software/gcc/gcc.html) that they talk about front ends
> for a variety of languages and my understanding was that the various front
> ends are - or could be - built together much as Gnat will translate Ada or
> C.
Don't forget that there is more to a compiler than translating code. You
need an implementation of the whole run-time library, and that will not be
automatically available for all targets supported by gcc.

--
---------------------------------------------------------
           J-P. Rosen (rosen@adalog.fr)
Visit Adalog's web site at http://www.adalog.fr

Re: Mixing Cygnus & Gnat compilers on the same machine

[Tarjei T. Jensen]

Marin David Condic
>As for my apparent misconception about how Gnat would potentially move to
>different platforms, let me ask this: If Gnat and gcc merge, doesn't that
>mean that the Ada front end is now hooked to the normally distributed gcc
>back end? I noticed on the web site for gcc
>(http://www.gnu.org/software/gcc/gcc.html) that they talk about front ends
>for a variety of languages and my understanding was that the various front
>ends are - or could be - built together much as Gnat will translate Ada or
>C. (or Cygnus will translate C or C++) Maybe it requires some additional
>tinkering to get the front ends connected and operating together

I'd expect that one would have to port the run-time support part of the
compiler. If you have a target which require no run-time support, then you
should be able to use gnat out of the box.

However, there might be trouble with the generated code that would require a
porting effort. To what degree this is the case is not something I can
answer.


Greetings,

Re: Mixing Cygnus & Gnat compilers on the same machine

[Stephen Leake]

"Marin David Condic" <marin.condic.auntie.spam@pacemicro.com> writes:

> <snip>
> As for my apparent misconception about how Gnat would potentially move to
> different platforms, let me ask this: If Gnat and gcc merge, doesn't that
> mean that the Ada front end is now hooked to the normally distributed gcc
> back end? 

GNAT is already based on gcc. The "merge" discussion is about when
GNAT will appear the in "normal gcc distribution".

You can use GNAT for a MIPS target now. ACT supports the Solaris host;
I'm working on getting the Windows NT host working. It's mostly a
matter of setting the right configuration and compiling gcc and GNAT.

You won't find easy to install binaries for the MIPS target; you
either have to get ACT support, or be willing to compile it yourself.
Compiling gcc and GNAT is _not_ hard on host/target combinations that
are already supported. The hardest part is forcing yourself to follow
the instructions _exactly_, especially when applying the various
patches needed. 

Patching will become unnecessary when GNAT appears in the "normal gcc
distribution".

Hope this helps,

-- 
-- Stephe

Re: Mixing Cygnus & Gnat compilers on the same machine

[Marin David Condic]

Well, the problem is that we already have a Cygnus compiler targeted to our
MIPS machine - and not being the guy who handles that particular part of the
deal I don't know if it is a "pure" MIPS thingie or if maybe there have been
some customizations for our machine. (I'm pretty sure we already have a
support contract with Cygnus on this.)

No, I'm not in a position to fire Cygnus and hire ACT and I can't dictate
that all new development be done in Ada. I was actually hoping for a
"back-door" approach to it. If GNAT and the Gnu distribution of gcc get
merged, there's some chance that the Ada front-end might at some point find
its way into the Cygnus version that we are using. (Yes, I realize it won't
happen by osmosis - I'm not totally dim! :-) Someone at Cygnus has to think
this is worth doing.) That makes it possible for me to build some clever
sideline things for the embedded computer in Ada. Suddenly, Ada becomes part
of what we do and perhaps this causes some conversions to take place in the
hearts and minds of other developers here. Its sneaky and underhanded, but
often very effective!

My observation here is that what I want to do isn't simply be able to
generate code for a MIPS processor. Ada for MIPS has been available from a
number of sources for some time. The problem is one of getting Ada
introduced into an organization and that can require specific paths be
taken.

MDC
--
Marin David Condic
Senior Software Engineer
Pace Micro Technology Americas    www.pacemicro.com
Enabling the digital revolution
e-Mail:    marin.condic@pacemicro.com
Web:      http://www.mcondic.com/


"Stephen Leake" <stephen.a.leake.1@gsfc.nasa.gov> wrote in message
news:uwv8fxl4w.fsf@gsfc.nasa.gov...

> You can use GNAT for a MIPS target now. ACT supports the Solaris host;
> I'm working on getting the Windows NT host working. It's mostly a
> matter of setting the right configuration and compiling gcc and GNAT.
>
> You won't find easy to install binaries for the MIPS target; you
> either have to get ACT support, or be willing to compile it yourself.
> Compiling gcc and GNAT is _not_ hard on host/target combinations that
> are already supported. The hardest part is forcing yourself to follow
> the instructions _exactly_, especially when applying the various
> patches needed.

Re: Mixing Cygnus & Gnat compilers on the same machine

[Scott Ingram]

Marin David Condic wrote:
> 
> Well, the problem is that we already have a Cygnus compiler targeted to our
> MIPS machine - and not being the guy who handles that particular part of the
> deal I don't know if it is a "pure" MIPS thingie or if maybe there have been
> some customizations for our machine. (I'm pretty sure we already have a
> support contract with Cygnus on this.)

There are some weird and wonderful things that can be done with gcc. 
For example
it is relatively easy to have two or more versions of gcc in the same
tree.  (Examine
the "-V" option.)  Unfortunately, this is where the merge of the sources
becomes
important...the 2.9x versions of gcc are not Ada aware, so it makes no
sense to use
this particular feature.

I think customizations for your platform are unlikely (can't be ruled
out of course,)
but building a cross compiler for a supported platform is relatively
trivial.  As Stephe
notes, it does require following the directions very carefully.

Have you built gnat from sources?  I am certainly willing to help if you
need to.

> 
> No, I'm not in a position to fire Cygnus and hire ACT and I can't dictate
> that all new development be done in Ada. I was actually hoping for a
> "back-door" approach to it. If GNAT and the Gnu distribution of gcc get
> merged, there's some chance that the Ada front-end might at some point find
> its way into the Cygnus version that we are using. (Yes, I realize it won't
> happen by osmosis - I'm not totally dim! :-) Someone at Cygnus has to think
> this is worth doing.) That makes it possible for me to build some clever
> sideline things for the embedded computer in Ada. Suddenly, Ada becomes part
> of what we do and perhaps this causes some conversions to take place in the
> hearts and minds of other developers here. Its sneaky and underhanded, but
> often very effective!

When they get merged, the source will be available in your distribution
from
Cygnus.  Since you are using gcc, I presume that there is no requirement
for
a validated compiler to start with.  In that case it simply becomes a
matter
of rebuilding the compiler.  (Unless you are also using g++, which is
problematic
but not insurmountable.)  Unless there is some requirement for you to
NOT rebuild
the compiler...but then we run into a management issue that will have to
be
resolved somehow.

> 
> My observation here is that what I want to do isn't simply be able to
> generate code for a MIPS processor. Ada for MIPS has been available from a
> number of sources for some time. The problem is one of getting Ada
> introduced into an organization and that can require specific paths be
> taken.
> 

I think the issue here is "specific paths."  Technically there is no
difficulty
mixing the compilers, or even mixing objects generated by the current
versions...
perhaps you could elaborate?

> MDC
> --

-- 
Scott Ingram
Vice-Chair, Baltimore SIGAda
Sonar Processing and Analysis Laboratory
Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory

Re: Mixing Cygnus & Gnat compilers on the same machine

[Marin David Condic]

"Scott Ingram" <scott@silver.jhuapl.edu> wrote in message
news:3AE45854.DA5ECDC3@silver.jhuapl.edu...
> There are some weird and wonderful things that can be done with gcc.
> For example
> it is relatively easy to have two or more versions of gcc in the same
> tree.  (Examine
> the "-V" option.)  Unfortunately, this is where the merge of the sources
> becomes
> important...the 2.9x versions of gcc are not Ada aware, so it makes no
> sense to use
> this particular feature.
>
This thread started out with a somewhat different problem - I was trying to
make sure that if I installed Gnat/PC/NT onto my machine that I would not
somehow clobber the Cygnus/gcc/embedded MIPS compiler. This part seems to
have been resolved with an answer of "Yes you can - some minor details to be
resolved along the way..."

The conversation forked to the merger of the Gnat compiler with the gcc
compiler at the Gnu website and so on from there. My observation being that
if the Gnat code merged with the Gnu distribution that it might eventually
meander its way into the Cygnus compiler that targets my embedded machine.

I very much do not want to attempt to monkey around with the Cygnus compiler
and attempt to get the Ada front end integrated with it. Nothing down that
path would constitute "real work" for us here and we tend to have our hands
full making money for the stockholders rather than tinkering with compilers
out of curiosity or a labor of love. It would also be a problem in that we
are going to regularly get updates for the Cygnus compiler and any local
tinkering starts to create headaches for merger. There isn't an Ada mandate
to comply with (or seek to get out from under! :-) or any other "real work"
reason to ask for more problems than we already have, so unless the compiler
comes from Cygnus with Ada already a part of it (as we get C++ as a part of
the C compiler) there is no way I can justify trying to do anything with it
unless it is a trivial amount of work. Everyone here is a C weenie (except
for me) so I just can't see any way of finding a frontal assault into the
organization. ("You want to spend time doing what??? We're doing everything
in C - why change it now? It ain't broke - don't even think of trying to fix
it! We've got a schedule to maintain. You're out of your mind!" :-)


> I think customizations for your platform are unlikely (can't be ruled
> out of course,)
> but building a cross compiler for a supported platform is relatively
> trivial.  As Stephe
> notes, it does require following the directions very carefully.
>
We've got a MIPS processor with some very specialized stuff tightly glued
onto it. We've got our own non-off-the-shelf OS (although it is becoming a
*kind* of Off The Shelf OS... But I digress) and there are some really big
numbers of units utilizing all of the above. I can't rule out that someone
hasn't paid Cygnus to do something to the compiler that adapts it better to
our platform. That said, you can add this to one more reason NOT to muck
about with it.

> Have you built gnat from sources?  I am certainly willing to help if you
> need to.
>
Nope. One day as a hobby or some business venture or brandy-new startup
project, I might find an excuse to do this. As it stands, (and to paraphrase
Marx) "Work is the curse of the tinkering man." The demands of getting the
job out the door may allow for a little newsgroup participation and the
occasional sideline hack job, but building Gnat (or gcc) from sources sounds
like it would be a bit too time consuming to undertake unless I had some
specific purpose in mind. Not having one (and having plenty of other
sideline projects that I *do* have specific purposes in mind for if one day
they stop languishing from neglect & move forward...) I don't want to start
investing time into learning how to rebuild/modify Gnat.


> >
> When they get merged, the source will be available in your distribution
> from
> Cygnus.  Since you are using gcc, I presume that there is no requirement
> for
> a validated compiler to start with.  In that case it simply becomes a
> matter
> of rebuilding the compiler.  (Unless you are also using g++, which is
> problematic
> but not insurmountable.)  Unless there is some requirement for you to
> NOT rebuild
> the compiler...but then we run into a management issue that will have to
> be
> resolved somehow.
>
No I don't need a validated compiler. I was kind of given the impression
that there would be more to it than simply rebuilding the compiler from
sources anyway (otherwise, why wouldn't it then suddenly appear when Cygnus
rebuilt from sources?) I'd certainly believe there would be bugs & testing
needed to get a fully functional product working. (Go look at comments
elsewhere in this thread). I'd easily believe that Cygnus could choose to
make Ada a part of their release and, with some non-Zero level of effort,
get the Ada front end integrated with the rest of their stuff. For me to try
to do that without a mandate would not be a good idea.

>
> I think the issue here is "specific paths."  Technically there is no
> difficulty
> mixing the compilers, or even mixing objects generated by the current
> versions...
> perhaps you could elaborate?
>
By "specific paths" I mean that if Ada gets into the organization via a
specific path, it does so basically unnoticed and unchallenged. I don't mean
by some "technical" path (environment variables, etc). If Ada rides in
piggybacked on top of the Cygnus compiler, nobody is going to say "No, you
can't do that!" If it came in via having to get somebody to purchase it and
get a project to sign up for it, etc., you all of a sudden have to justify
it and are probably going to get told "No, you can't do that!" Its always
easier for someone to say "No" than to say "Yes" - so its better if nobody
has to even see it coming.

MDC
--
Marin David Condic
Senior Software Engineer
Pace Micro Technology Americas    www.pacemicro.com
Enabling the digital revolution
e-Mail:    marin.condic@pacemicro.com
Web:      http://www.mcondic.com/

Re: Mixing Cygnus & Gnat compilers on the same machine

[David Starner]

On Mon, 23 Apr 2001, Scott Ingram <scott@silver.jhuapl.edu> wrote:
> For example it is relatively easy to have two or more versions of
> gcc in the same tree.  (Examine the "-V" option.)  

I don't think that feature has ever worked very well for non-C
languages, and I think they've deprecated it even for C. Letting
arbitrary versions of the frontend call arbitrary versions of the
internal programs was causing problems with the wrong options being
set and the wrong libraries being linked.

-- 
David Starner - dstarner98@aasaa.ofe.org
Pointless website: http://dvdeug.dhis.org
"I don't care if Bill personally has my name and reads my email and 
laughs at me. In fact, I'd be rather honored." - Joseph_Greg

Re: Mixing Cygnus & Gnat compilers on the same machine

[Matthias Andree]

"Marin David Condic" <marin.condic.auntie.spam@pacemicro.com> writes:

> Until such time as GNAT is merged with the "normal" gcc distribution*, it
> 
> *(Will this ever happen? Ada being part of the regular gcc distribution,
> that is. It would seem like it would be putting Ada in front of lots more
> people - don't know what that may do so the ACT business model, though...)

Being a C/C++/Perl programmer, and as someone who's just considering if
Ada 95 (Gnat) might be worth learning, I'd really appreciate if Gnat was
a real part of the GNU compiler collection, it would give a comfortable
feeling of a compiler which has up-to date code generators and is
well-maintained. Plus, an Ada compiler being distributed along with a
set of C, C++, Objective-C and Fortran compilers would greatly enlarge
the number of installed copies, thus offering more eyes to spot
problems, and enhancing portability. People could start, for example,
developing free software in Ada95 without requiring the possible users
to install a binary package.

Back to lurking ;-)

-- 
Matthias Andree

Re: Mixing Cygnus & Gnat compilers on the same machine

[Ted Dennison]

In article <9c1t5v$gg$1@nh.pace.co.uk>, Marin David Condic says...
>
>project, I might find an excuse to do this. As it stands, (and to paraphrase
>Marx) "Work is the curse of the tinkering man." The demands of getting the
>job out the door may allow for a little newsgroup participation and the

Karl, or Groucho? :-)

---
T.E.D.    homepage   - http://www.telepath.com/dennison/Ted/TED.html
          home email - mailto:dennison@telepath.com

Re: Mixing Cygnus & Gnat compilers on the same machine

[Marin David Condic]

"Ted Dennison" <dennison@telepath.com> wrote in message
news:1m%E6.2278$QV4.187396@www.newsranger.com...
> In article <9c1t5v$gg$1@nh.pace.co.uk>, Marin David Condic says...
> >
> >project, I might find an excuse to do this. As it stands, (and to
paraphrase
> >Marx) "Work is the curse of the tinkering man." The demands of getting
the
> >job out the door may allow for a little newsgroup participation and the
>
> Karl, or Groucho? :-)
>
I believe it was Karl - the funniest of the Marx Brothers. (That "Worker's
of the world unite..." joke was the funniest comedy bit until Abbot and
Costello began to explore "Who's on first?") I believe the original quote
was "Work is the curse of the drinking man" - or words to that effect. :-)

MDC
--
Marin David Condic
Senior Software Engineer
Pace Micro Technology Americas    www.pacemicro.com
Enabling the digital revolution
e-Mail:    marin.condic@pacemicro.com
Web:      http://www.mcondic.com/

Re: Mixing Cygnus & Gnat compilers on the same machine

[Marin David Condic]

Actually, I believe the Gnat compiler is ahead of the GNU gcc compiler in
terms of the advancement of the code generator.

I thoroughly agree that it would be wonderful to get all the front ends
under one roof & possibly have a compiler that could translate all the C
dialects, Fortran, Java, etc. There's always a need to apply more than one
language at a user site, if for no other reason than the large bodies of
legacy code in a variety of languages. Even die-hard C sites are likely to
have some C++ or Fortran or other language code lying around. GNU being able
to translate X languages from Y hosts to Z targets starts making it a very
attractive choice. Sort of like the marketing situation that existed in Las
Vegas for years - the casinos worked more like partners because by having
dozens of hotels & casinos up and down the strip, they made Vegas that much
more attractive for people to select as a vacation site. The rising tide
raises all boats.

Well, it will be interesting to see how this develops over time. I just
don't see the timespan as being something small.

MDC
--
Marin David Condic
Senior Software Engineer
Pace Micro Technology Americas    www.pacemicro.com
Enabling the digital revolution
e-Mail:    marin.condic@pacemicro.com
Web:      http://www.mcondic.com/

"Matthias Andree" <matthias.andree@gmx.de> wrote in message
news:m3zod7qvz5.fsf@emma1.emma.line.org...
>
> Being a C/C++/Perl programmer, and as someone who's just considering if
> Ada 95 (Gnat) might be worth learning, I'd really appreciate if Gnat was
> a real part of the GNU compiler collection, it would give a comfortable
> feeling of a compiler which has up-to date code generators and is
> well-maintained. Plus, an Ada compiler being distributed along with a
> set of C, C++, Objective-C and Fortran compilers would greatly enlarge
> the number of installed copies, thus offering more eyes to spot
> problems, and enhancing portability. People could start, for example,
> developing free software in Ada95 without requiring the possible users
> to install a binary package.
>
> Back to lurking ;-)
>
> --
> Matthias Andree

Re: Mixing Cygnus & Gnat compilers on the same machine

[David Starner]

On Tue, 24 Apr 2001 09:58:33 -0400, Marin David Condic <marin.condic.auntie.spam@pacemicro.com> wrote:
> Actually, I believe the Gnat compiler is ahead of the GNU gcc compiler in
> terms of the advancement of the code generator.

GNAT is based off the GNAT 2.8.1 code base with minor patches to the 
code generator. EGCS 1.0 was about equal to 2.8.1, at which point 
pretty much all the non-ACT developers decided to work on EGCS, which
become GNU GCC again a couple generations down the line. So the gcc 
code generator should be well ahead of the GNAT code generator.

-- 
David Starner - dstarner98@aasaa.ofe.org
Pointless website: http://dvdeug.dhis.org
"I don't care if Bill personally has my name and reads my email and 
laughs at me. In fact, I'd be rather honored." - Joseph_Greg

Re: Mixing Cygnus & Gnat compilers on the same machine

[Ted Dennison]

In article <m3zod7qvz5.fsf@emma1.emma.line.org>, Matthias Andree says...
>
>Being a C/C++/Perl programmer, and as someone who's just considering if
>Ada 95 (Gnat) might be worth learning, I'd really appreciate if Gnat was
>a real part of the GNU compiler collection, it would give a comfortable
..
>problems, and enhancing portability. People could start, for example,
>developing free software in Ada95 without requiring the possible users
>to install a binary package.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. I'm the maintainer of the SETI@Home Service
(see http://www.telepath.com/dennison/Ted/SETI/SETI_Service.html ), a free
software project written in Ada95 using Gnat. It has quite a few users, and none
of them had to install anything special other than the program executables
themselves. 

Perhaps you are talking about distributing sources, and not having to install a
separate compiler. For my user-base that's not really much of an issue, as very
few Win2K/NT users have a compiler of any sort installed, let alone the
(non-Gnat) gcc compiler. I understand this is now typical for propriatary Unixes
as well, exept that most users go ahead and pay extra for the C compiler.

---
T.E.D.    homepage   - http://www.telepath.com/dennison/Ted/TED.html
          home email - mailto:dennison@telepath.com

Re: Mixing Cygnus & Gnat compilers on the same machine

[Pascal Obry]

dvdeug@x8b4e53cd.dhcp.okstate.edu (David Starner) writes:

> GNAT is based off the GNAT 2.8.1 code base with minor patches to the 

It is not "minor patches", download GNAT sources and see by yourself
(file gcc-281.dif)

Pascal.

-- 

--|------------------------------------------------------
--| Pascal Obry                           Team-Ada Member
--| 45, rue Gabriel Peri - 78114 Magny Les Hameaux FRANCE
--|------------------------------------------------------
--|         http://perso.wanadoo.fr/pascal.obry
--|
--| "The best way to travel is by means of imagination"

Re: Mixing Cygnus & Gnat compilers on the same machine

[Matthias Andree]

Ted Dennison<dennison@telepath.com>  writes:

> I'm not sure what you mean by this. I'm the maintainer of the
> SETI@Home Service (see
> http://www.telepath.com/dennison/Ted/SETI/SETI_Service.html ), a free
> software project written in Ada95 using Gnat. It has quite a few
> users, and none of them had to install anything special other than the
> program executables themselves.

Well, that's a binary package. You end up compiling binaries for all
kinds of systems, while most sites have a C compiler installed, be it
the vendor's product like sunpro or mipspro, or gcc, or both.

> Perhaps you are talking about distributing sources, and not having to
> install a separate compiler. For my user-base that's not really much
> of an issue, as very few Win2K/NT users have a compiler of any sort
> installed, let alone the (non-Gnat) gcc compiler. I understand this is
> now typical for propriatary Unixes as well, exept that most users go
> ahead and pay extra for the C compiler.

I'm usually using FreeBSD, Linux and look after some Solaris boxes at
university, Windows (of any kind) is not common. The free unix clones
come with gcc, FreeBSD 4.3-RELEASE (current release) has gcc 2.95.2, for
example. I agree that gcc on Windows is not too common, because many
people who want to use gcc go for The Real Thing, some variant of Unix,
that is. Less hassle to set up, more efficient in use (Yes, I'm aware of
the Cygwin project).

If an Ada compiler was part of gcc, it would be pre-installed at many
unix sites, thus, Ada would become more widely known.

In the meanwhile, I'm going to get Wheeler's Lovelace tutorial on Ada 95
from my local university library.

-- 
Matthias Andree

Re: Mixing Cygnus & Gnat compilers on the same machine

[Marin David Condic]

Well, it seems I've discovered a flaw that pricks the bubble of my earlier
irrational exuberance....

On attempting to recompile some C++ code with the Cygnus compiler, I got the
following message:

Compiling rads/diag.cpp into rads/diag.o
mips-elf-g++: installation problem, cannot exec `cpp': No such file or
directory

Upon de-installing Gnat, everything in Cygnus went back to being fine again.
I can pretty much reproduce it exactly by installing/deinstalling Gnat and
don't even need to reopen a command line window & reexecute the setup for
Cygnus. (do the "make" from a window with Gnat installed - problem.
Deinstall Gnat & repeat the command from the same window - it works.) It
might be a lot of things, but at this juncture, I am not sure what.

Anyway, be advised that Cygnus and Gnat have some problems playing in the
same sandbox together. If anyone has an incling as to why, maybe you can
clue me in. Thanks.

MDC
--
Marin David Condic
Senior Software Engineer
Pace Micro Technology Americas    www.pacemicro.com
Enabling the digital revolution
e-Mail:    marin.condic@pacemicro.com
Web:      http://www.mcondic.com/

"Marin David Condic" <marin.condic.auntie.spam@pacemicro.com> wrote in
message news:9bn2gr$55d$1@nh.pace.co.uk...
> Just in case you're ever on a quiz show and the emcee asks you about
running
> Cygnus with Gnat....... :-)
>

Re: Mixing Cygnus & Gnat compilers on the same machine

[David Starner]

On 25 Apr 2001 09:42:08 +0200, Pascal Obry <p.obry@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
> 
> dvdeug@x8b4e53cd.dhcp.okstate.edu (David Starner) writes:
> 
>> GNAT is based off the GNAT 2.8.1 code base with minor patches to the 
> 
> It is not "minor patches", download GNAT sources and see by yourself
> (file gcc-281.dif)

It's 12 thousand lines, meaning it touchs less than 6 thousand lines
of code. It's a 400k patch, uncompressed. Whereas the patch between 
egcs 1.1 and gcc-2.95 was 6 megs, compressed. My quick runthrough
the changelogs in gcc-281.dif didn't reveal any major new 
optimiziations - mostly bug fixes. Even with the patches, it's still
fundamentally the GCC 2.8.1 backend.

-- 
David Starner - dstarner98@aasaa.ofe.org
Pointless website: http://dvdeug.dhis.org
"I don't care if Bill personally has my name and reads my email and 
laughs at me. In fact, I'd be rather honored." - Joseph_Greg

Re: Mixing Cygnus & Gnat compilers on the same machine

[Sune Falck]

In article <9c742i$1od$1@nh.pace.co.uk>, "Marin David Condic" <marin.condic.auntie.spam@pacemicro.com> wrote:
>On attempting to recompile some C++ code with the Cygnus compiler, I got the
>following message:
>
>Compiling rads/diag.cpp into rads/diag.o
>mips-elf-g++: installation problem, cannot exec `cpp': No such file or
>directory
>
>Upon de-installing Gnat, everything in Cygnus went back to being fine again.
>I can pretty much reproduce it exactly by installing/deinstalling Gnat and

Lookup page
http://www.xraylith.wisc.edu/~khan/software/gnu-win32/gcc.html
and find the section with the following text 
"GCC can't find includes/libraries/programs:" 
near the end.

There is a description and a solution to an older problem with
gnat/cygwin using the same registry entry.

Sune Falck

Re: Mixing Cygnus & Gnat compilers on the same machine

[Marin David Condic]

That seems pretty much to be it. I reinstalled Gnat and the registry entry:
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\Free Software Foundation\GCC appears there. The
Cygnus compiler stops working. I change the name of this entry and Cygnus
goes back to working, but Gnat stops. Thanks for the C program at that site
to do the toggling. I'll see if I can get it working here, then run it from
my setup batch files.

MDC
--
Marin David Condic
Senior Software Engineer
Pace Micro Technology Americas    www.pacemicro.com
Enabling the digital revolution
e-Mail:    marin.condic@pacemicro.com
Web:      http://www.mcondic.com/



"Sune Falck" <Sune.Falck@telia.com> wrote in message
news:YWFF6.6967$sk3.1899789@newsb.telia.net...

> Lookup page
> http://www.xraylith.wisc.edu/~khan/software/gnu-win32/gcc.html
> and find the section with the following text
> "GCC can't find includes/libraries/programs:"
> near the end.
>
> There is a description and a solution to an older problem with
> gnat/cygwin using the same registry entry.
>
> Sune Falck
>