From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,6e688afdbf4b6072
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: Calling Ada from C
Date: 1995/04/04
Message-ID: <3ls6ah$no3@gnat.cs.nyu.edu>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 100815587
references: <3kp8il$avh@linus.mitre.org> <3ksanp$bab@theopolis.orl.mmc.com>
 <1995Mar24.121422.9469@eisner> <3l3kki$rg4@gnat.cs.nyu.edu>
 <3l6j5k$h05@theopolis.orl.mmc.com> <1995Mar28.214747.9516@eisner>
 <3lckgf$36r@theopolis.orl.mmc.com>
organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1995-04-04T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

T.E.D. notes that GNAT has the "restriction" that if the main program is
not in Ada, then you must "manually
 call the elaboration routine.

It is true that this is the case, and indeed thuis is according to
Implementation Advice in the RM, which even suggests the name of the
routine to be called "adainit".

We can in fact eventually hook into the collect2 mechanism that is used
to automatically elaborate C++ constructors. However, I am not sure that
this "removal of the restriction" is such a good thing. It seems to me
to have advantages to control exactly where elaboration takes place.