Re: GNAT and register allocation

[Georg Bauhaus <rm.dash-bauhaus@futureapps.de>]

On 26.04.12 12:55, Stephen Leake wrote:

> So the Ada programers are required to understand the C and Fortran
> compiler options well enough to maintain them?

Language X programmers need not maintain language Y switches
and vice versa, but they will want to understand them; Ada programmers
are also required to pick switches that are reasonably simple,
comparable, and not overly program-specific. Deviating from standard
options requires a convincing reason. (There is at least one such case.)



> If that were fixed, I think it's reasonable to expect anyone who can
> maintain makefiles and compiler options in general to maintain gpr files.

GNAT project files, or something equivalent taken from some other
language's implementation, could create an organizational problem
in two ways.

1. There is no question that good configuration files are superior
to switches, in particular if configuration files are more than syntax
around switches. However, since configuration files are superior,
they create a major asymmetry if another language's setup cannot be
controlled in the same way. And even if, they'd force everyone under
the rule of a possibly "foreign" control. This is simply not viable.

2. The configuration is done by "central services". They want
simplicity and comparability, possibly at the expense of some
minor disadvantages for one or other implementation language.


> And did anyone object to that "non-compatible options" change?

I think no one objected to necessary adjustments caused by a different
dialect of switches, and the Intel Fortran switches are "by the rules".