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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: a07f3367d7,cc3c5a58c46ea9c4 X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Received: by 10.224.219.146 with SMTP id hu18mr1658187qab.3.1364013316825; Fri, 22 Mar 2013 21:35:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.49.85.165 with SMTP id i5mr297568qez.28.1364013316802; Fri, 22 Mar 2013 21:35:16 -0700 (PDT) Path: k8ni11100qas.0!nntp.google.com!ca1no2708243qab.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 21:35:16 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=172.0.242.94; posting-account=-WG8VgoAAAAlWewKFi0J7zSTMYXZyyK3 NNTP-Posting-Host: 172.0.242.94 References: User-Agent: G2/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <40bc8ca0-a7a3-4deb-8eab-af373504c318@googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: Runtime startup code for the GNAT Runtime...and a bit of humble pie. From: Diogenes Injection-Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2013 04:35:16 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: 2013-03-22T21:35:16-07:00 List-Id: Alright...to keep this from becoming another Ada vs thread I'll = explain what I'm working on now. Since I got my first "version" to actually compile and do something, I'm no= w working on getting it to link with musl libc. Seems like I should still b= e able to compile and link it with gnatmake(since I'm not porting it to ano= ther platform YET!). No? http://www.musl-libc.org/ However... I would eventually like to get a port going to the Android platform. Seems = like that's a place that could really use some high quality code. And the o= nly place where GNAT seems to have a fit is in the binding/linking stage. S= hould we consider writing separate binder/linker utilities that are somewha= t more flexible with the kind of system we're building for? Which leads me = to my next train of thought... Linking with C isn't necessarily bad(although I don't particularly like gli= bc) as long as your not too dependent on that library, and the library is a= good one.=20 For this iteration of my runtime project I'm focusing on size. http://www.fefe.de/dietlibc/diet.pdf Seems like given that the runtime is being compiled on it's native platform= , linking it to a different C Runtime should be trivial. My next step is a bare bones runtime. Am I assuming too much here?