* Re: Building an Ada compiler
1996-06-28 0:00 Building an Ada compiler ErkoDJK
@ 1996-06-28 0:00 ` Ray Blaak
1996-06-28 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
1996-07-01 0:00 ` Michael Feldman
1996-06-28 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
` (4 subsequent siblings)
5 siblings, 2 replies; 26+ messages in thread
From: Ray Blaak @ 1996-06-28 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
erkodjk@aol.com (ErkoDJK) writes:
>Some friends and I have a crazy idea. We want to build an Ada 95 compiler
>targeted for the Macintosh computer (without requiring Unix, like
>GNAT/GCC).
Are you sure that GNAT requires UNIX? After all, its been ported to VMS and
DOS. Change your project to that of porting GNAT, and most of your work is
done.
Cheers,
Ray Blaak
blaak@mda.ca
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
* Re: Building an Ada compiler
1996-06-28 0:00 ` Ray Blaak
@ 1996-06-28 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
1996-07-01 0:00 ` Michael Feldman
1 sibling, 0 replies; 26+ messages in thread
From: Robert Dewar @ 1996-06-28 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
Ray Black asked:
"Are you sure that GNAT requires UNIX? After all, its been ported to VMS and
DOS. Change your project to that of porting GNAT, and most of your work is
done."
Certainly GNAT does NOT require Unix. GNAT is currently available on
DOS, WIn 3.1, Win95, WINNT, OS/2, and will soon be available on
OpenVMS/Alpha.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
* Re: Building an Ada compiler
1996-06-28 0:00 ` Ray Blaak
1996-06-28 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
@ 1996-07-01 0:00 ` Michael Feldman
1 sibling, 0 replies; 26+ messages in thread
From: Michael Feldman @ 1996-07-01 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
In article <4r0t56$50v@map.mda.ca>, Ray Blaak <blaak@mda.ca> wrote:
>erkodjk@aol.com (ErkoDJK) writes:
>
>>Some friends and I have a crazy idea. We want to build an Ada 95 compiler
>>targeted for the Macintosh computer (without requiring Unix, like
>>GNAT/GCC).
>
>Are you sure that GNAT requires UNIX? After all, its been ported to VMS and
>DOS. Change your project to that of porting GNAT, and most of your work is
>done.
GNAT does not, per se, require Unix, but it does require an underlying
GNU infrastructure (loader, assembler, machine descriptions and all that).
The currently in-process GNAT for Mac uses MachTen as its host environment,
in part because MachTen provides a standard Unix shell and the necessary
GNU infrastructure. We looked at alternatives to MachTen, especially MPW,
but the necessary GNU stuff simply was not available. Same for MkLinux.
This GNAT is _hosted_ on MachTen, but _targets_ stand-alone Mac applications
as well. We are testing toolbox ("SDK") bindings, and in so doing have
already produced a number of quite decent Mac programs, with more to come.
True, MachTen is a partly proprietary environment, but so are MPW,
CodeWarrior, Symantec, etc. The only completely free-software development
environment for Mac right now is MkLinux, which currently is supported
on only a limited range of Mavs (that limitation will change with time)
and does not coexist with other "ordinary" Mac apps. The nice thing
about MachTen is that it runs as a Mac app, so you can keep Word or Excel
(or whatever) running in another window.
It is commonly estimated that producing a GNAT port, given that the GNU
backend (machine-description) support already exists, takes about a
person-year. Given the existence of MachTen with its GNU support for
68k and PowerMac, this project is turning out to be roughly in that
ballpark.
See http://gnat-mac.com/macada/ for details. You can download GNAT
3.05, which is in pretty good shape. You do need MachTen, of course.
You might want to consider doing a GNAT port to MkLinux, or to MPW, if the
GNU stuff is available yet for MPW. I do NOT recommend starting from
scratch, unless you have lots of resources.
Mike Feldman
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael B. Feldman - chair, SIGAda Education Working Group
Professor, Dept. of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science
The George Washington University - Washington, DC 20052 USA
202-994-5919 (voice) - 202-994-0227 (fax)
http://www.seas.gwu.edu/faculty/mfeldman
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pork is all that money the government gives the other guys.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ada on the WWW: http://lglwww.epfl.ch/Ada/ or http://info.acm.org/sigada/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
* Re: Building an Ada compiler
1996-06-28 0:00 Building an Ada compiler ErkoDJK
1996-06-28 0:00 ` Ray Blaak
@ 1996-06-28 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
1996-06-28 0:00 ` Robert A Duff
` (3 subsequent siblings)
5 siblings, 0 replies; 26+ messages in thread
From: Robert Dewar @ 1996-06-28 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
David said
>Some friends and I have a crazy idea. We want to build an Ada 95 compiler
>targeted for the Macintosh computer (without requiring Unix, like
>GNAT/GCC). To that end, I would like to ask the Ada and compiler experts
>here (and anyone else who wishes to respond) for some information,
>including, just how insane are we?
If you are proposing to build a complete Ada 95 compiler, then if you
have an appropriate group of experienced compiler experts, a typical
estimate is in the range of 20-50 person years of work (much more than
that has gone into the GNAT compiler if you include the whole compiler).
Since below you say that none of you are compiler experts, likely you
are not proposing such a project (or if you are, perhaps insane might
be an appropriate adjective :-)
What might make sense is to start with GNAT and modify it to run under
E.T.O. rather than under Unix. The point is that you can't build a
compiler that runs directly on System-7, certainly not if it is based
on GNAT, and in general some kind of command line interface is really
needed for a usable compiler.
For the GNAT/Mac project we considered the alternatives. We required a
command line processor that could co-exist with System-7, so that ruled
out, for example, the new MkLinux port. Certainly MPW and its successor
ETO is a possible choice, but we preferred Macten for the following
reasons:
Machten will be much easier to obtain. Tenon is planning a low cost
CD ROM that will contain a vesion of Machten sufficient to fully
support GNAT along with GNAT itself.
Tenon is actively supporting the effort and working closely with us
in providing support, such as threads support for the Ada tasking.
More people are familiar with Unix as a basis for a command line
environment than MPW or ETO.
A far richer set of tools is available under the Unix environment
than under MPW or ETO.
>Self-effacing humor aside, just how big a project is an Ada 95 compiler?
>Those of us planning to work on this project are all Ada software
>engineers with at least seven years of experience, but none of us are
>compiler experts. I am a pessimist, and feel that the project size
>estimates my friends have come up with are low. Historical data from
>other projects would be helpful.
>What sources are available to help such an endeavor (other then the AdaIC,
>and Apple)?
I do not think either AdaIC or Apple will be much help, but the sources
of the Macten GNAT port will be a very good starting point for such a
project, and the first step should be to get hold of Machten, and get
to the point where you can build the current Mac port from sources.
We can provide a little help for such a project but not much, on the
other hand, many people have succeeded in porting GNAT to all sorts
of platforms without much help, and an ETO/Mac port does not seem a
particularly difficult one, given that you have a good start (which
for example takes care of most architectural problems).
>How much interest is there for an Ada 95 compiler for the Macintosh that
>does not require Unix (It will initially work under E.T.O., the MPW
>replacement)? This seems to be a neglected market. The GNAT-Mac project
>(which requires MachTen, a well-regarded Unix), and the outdated Meridian
>Ada compiler (now in Rational's hands), are the only Macintosh Ada
>compilers I am aware of.
I note the "initially" here, so perhaps you have in mind producing a
version that works completely within the System-7 framework. Such a
system, using e.g. drag-and-drop for compiling, would not be usable
for large projects, but would be fine for small educational use.
However, that's a much bigger change.
Bottom line is that if you rethink your project in terms of a port of
GNAT, rather than building a new Ada 95 compiler from scratch, then it
is quite practical, and certainly of interest, since it is good to see
GNAT ported to as many different operating system environments as
possible (after all there are nine different ports on the IBM PC, so
we can certainly have more than one on the Mac).
One of the nice things about free software, which really means
freely-available software is precisely that you do not have to
reinvent the wheel to start a project like this!
Robert Dewar
P.S. the we in the above is the GNAT MAC project, which is ACT, Tenon,
and the folks at McKee consulting working together, see our home page
for further details.
P.P.S. The total magnitude of the GNAT MAC project is 2-3 person years
of work, partially funded by an AJPO ATIP grant, but of course you would
be able to borrow a lot of this work in your ETO project. On the other
hand this is 2-3 person years from people with a LOT of experience with
GNAT -- it all comes down to exactly what you aim for. The distance
from something that works reasonably to a polished product can be a
very long one, and for the Machten product, we are definitely trying
for a polished product.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
* Re: Building an Ada compiler
1996-06-28 0:00 Building an Ada compiler ErkoDJK
1996-06-28 0:00 ` Ray Blaak
1996-06-28 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
@ 1996-06-28 0:00 ` Robert A Duff
1996-06-28 0:00 ` Ruediger Berlich
` (2 more replies)
1996-06-29 0:00 ` Mark Eichin
` (2 subsequent siblings)
5 siblings, 3 replies; 26+ messages in thread
From: Robert A Duff @ 1996-06-28 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
In article <4r023h$jt2@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, ErkoDJK <erkodjk@aol.com> wrote:
>Some friends and I have a crazy idea. We want to build an Ada 95 compiler
>targeted for the Macintosh computer (without requiring Unix, like
>GNAT/GCC). To that end, I would like to ask the Ada and compiler experts
>here (and anyone else who wishes to respond) for some information,
>including, just how insane are we?
From scratch? Somewhere between 10 and 100 person-years, is my guess.
It depends on the expertise of the engineers, and how fancy you want to
make it (e.g. optimizations, debugging capabilities, etc). This comes
from my experience on Ada compiler projects, and talking to other Ada
compiler writers.
>Self-effacing humor aside, just how big a project is an Ada 95 compiler?
>Those of us planning to work on this project are all Ada software
>engineers with at least seven years of experience, but none of us are
>compiler experts. ...
In that case, probably closer to the upper-end of the above range.
Also, are you Ada language lawyers? For example, read the Ada Issues
produced by the ARG. If your response is "Heh? What are these people
babbling about?" then you have a lot to learn about the language itself.
For another example, can you come up with an example off the top of your
head showing why it is impossible for the parser to tell the difference
between a normal string_literal and an operator_symbol? That's
something that a normal Ada programmer wouldn't care about, but that a
compiler writer cares deeply about, since it affects the high-level
design. That's just one little example. All of these things can be
learned, of course, but it takes time.
IMHO, if you've never built a compiler, and don't know Ada like the back
of your hand, it would be foolish to build an Ada compiler as your first
try.
Anybody remember who said this (in regard to hand-made telescope
mirrors)? It's easier to make a 3-inch mirror and a 5-inch mirror, than
to make a 5-inch mirror.
- Bob
P.S. Sorry to be so gloomy...
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
* Re: Building an Ada compiler
1996-06-28 0:00 ` Robert A Duff
@ 1996-06-28 0:00 ` Ruediger Berlich
1996-06-29 0:00 ` Robert A Duff
1996-07-04 0:00 ` Jens Hansson
1996-06-28 0:00 ` Raul Barral Tamayo
1996-06-28 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
2 siblings, 2 replies; 26+ messages in thread
From: Ruediger Berlich @ 1996-06-28 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
Hi,
if writing an Ada-Compiler is that much of a problem, then,
how difficult is it to write an Ada95-Interpreter ?
I think of something one can plug into the code as a call to
the interpreter, where the interpeter knows anything about the
variables and objects defined at the calling-point of the
interpreter and is able to call all functions etc. that are accessible at
the calling point. So one could do 'on the fly'-development of programs
(e.g. provide a frame for the program which is linked with all necessary
libraries and then write the code that is needed while the program is
running.). O.k., maybe that is an illusion. But a nice one.
Bye and have a nice day, Ruediger
[berlich@pc66.mppmu.mpg.de]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
* Re: Building an Ada compiler
1996-06-28 0:00 ` Ruediger Berlich
@ 1996-06-29 0:00 ` Robert A Duff
1996-07-04 0:00 ` Jens Hansson
1 sibling, 0 replies; 26+ messages in thread
From: Robert A Duff @ 1996-06-29 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
In article <4r0u04$21b0@sat.ipp-garching.mpg.de>,
Ruediger Berlich <berlich@pc66.mppmu.mpg.de> wrote:
>Hi,
>if writing an Ada-Compiler is that much of a problem, then,
>how difficult is it to write an Ada95-Interpreter ?
Beats me. My guess is half the time to write a compiler, or somewhat
less. Maybe even one tenth as hard. But I have no expertise to back
that up.
To write an Ada interpreter, you still need to understand the language,
in a way that Ada programmers (thankfully) don't need to.
As various others have pointed out, maybe you should look into GNAT more
seriously -- yes, gcc is unix-based, but it's been ported to VMS and
DOS. Porting gcc to an an environment it's not used to might be hard,
but nowhere near as hard as writing an Ada compiler from scratch. Once
you port gcc, porting GNAT is not so hard.
- Bob
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
* Re: Building an Ada compiler
1996-06-28 0:00 ` Ruediger Berlich
1996-06-29 0:00 ` Robert A Duff
@ 1996-07-04 0:00 ` Jens Hansson
1 sibling, 0 replies; 26+ messages in thread
From: Jens Hansson @ 1996-07-04 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
In article <4r0u04$21b0@sat.ipp-garching.mpg.de>, berlich@pc66.mppmu.mpg.de
says...
>
>Hi,
>if writing an Ada-Compiler is that much of a problem, then,
>how difficult is it to write an Ada95-Interpreter ?
I'd say it's even more difficult! Think about changing a declaration (i.e. a
variable name or type) in a separate package header. Then all references in
all dependant modules of the program are invalid.
>I think of something one can plug into the code as a call to
>the interpreter, where the interpeter knows anything about the
>variables and objects defined at the calling-point of the
>interpreter and is able to call all functions etc. that are accessible at
>the calling point. So one could do 'on the fly'-development of programs
>(e.g. provide a frame for the program which is linked with all necessary
>libraries and then write the code that is needed while the program is
>running.). O.k., maybe that is an illusion. But a nice one.
>Bye and have a nice day, Ruediger
>[berlich@pc66.mppmu.mpg.de]
>
The main difficulties of making an Ada compiler is the complexity of the
language and efficient code generation. You cannot (legally :-)) simplify the
language, but you can simplify the code generation by generating code for a
virtual machine (like Java) which has appropriate instructions and data types.
I believe C is inappropriate as an intermediate language because of Adas
tasking -- You might be able to do it, but if your C compiler has stack
checking it'll probably break.
I would recommend the following:
* Get the Annotated RM, which contains RM plus lots of clarifications on how
the language works.
* Since you're not compiler writers, get a good book on compiler techniques
like "Compilers -- Principles, Techniques and Tools" by Aho, Sethi and
Ullman.
* Start out with a *tiny* subset of the language. Skip processes, exceptions,
user-defined types, procedure and operator overloading etc. I would start
with an Ada subset containing:
- only integer variables
- some program structure (like FOR loops)
- subroutines/functions with parameters and return values.
* Then I could add other data types:
- Floats, characters, booleans and enumerated types
- Array types, strings and simple Record types
- access types (skip the generics so far...). Memory management
(garbage collection) might produce a problem.
- Tagged records, type extensions, ... (Ugh!).
To make these data types more useful, you may want to implement:
- Overloaded procedures and functions.
- Overloaded operators.
When you've done this (assuming that you get everything to work in all
combinations) I would say that you have 2/3 of the work remaining.
I'd recommend you to use compiler generator tools like YACC (or PCCTS or ...,
check the comp.compilers group). These tools makes it a lot easier to change
the grammar as the compiler develops. Some tools even come with a few sample
grammars (I don't know if any of them comes with an Ada grammar though).
You're attempting to start a huge project. Good luck!
-- Jens
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
* Re: Building an Ada compiler
1996-06-28 0:00 ` Robert A Duff
1996-06-28 0:00 ` Ruediger Berlich
@ 1996-06-28 0:00 ` Raul Barral Tamayo
1996-06-28 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
1996-06-30 0:00 ` Gary McKee
1996-06-28 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
2 siblings, 2 replies; 26+ messages in thread
From: Raul Barral Tamayo @ 1996-06-28 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
Only a a couple of words :-), the idea behind GCC is a portable compiler
with the only need to change the front-end to incorporate a new language
and the back-end to add a new architecture so I think you could use the
GNAT front-end and you could make a Mac back-end, about this last I have
only heard about a language to describe it something similar to lex/yacc.
My 0.02$, raul.
In article <Dtppz2.4DM@world.std.com> bobduff@world.std.com (Robert A Duff) writes:
In article <4r023h$jt2@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, ErkoDJK <erkodjk@aol.com> wrote:
>Some friends and I have a crazy idea. We want to build an Ada 95 compiler
>targeted for the Macintosh computer (without requiring Unix, like
>GNAT/GCC). To that end, I would like to ask the Ada and compiler experts
>here (and anyone else who wishes to respond) for some information,
>including, just how insane are we?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
* Re: Building an Ada compiler
1996-06-28 0:00 ` Raul Barral Tamayo
@ 1996-06-28 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
1996-06-30 0:00 ` Gary McKee
1 sibling, 0 replies; 26+ messages in thread
From: Robert Dewar @ 1996-06-28 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
Raul said
" Only a a couple of words :-), the idea behind GCC is a portable compiler
with the only need to change the front-end to incorporate a new language
and the back-end to add a new architecture so I think you could use the
GNAT front-end and you could make a Mac back-end, about this last I have
only heard about a language to describe it something similar to lex/yacc."
Well that's a bit confused, the language used for machine description
files has *nothing* whatsoever in common with lex and yacc (which have
precious little in common with one another for that matter).
In any case, you don't need a new backend, you can use the existing PPC
and 68K backends. What you have to do is to modify the operating
environments, get tools like gdb, emacs, ld, make working etc.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
* Re: Building an Ada compiler
1996-06-28 0:00 ` Raul Barral Tamayo
1996-06-28 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
@ 1996-06-30 0:00 ` Gary McKee
1 sibling, 0 replies; 26+ messages in thread
From: Gary McKee @ 1996-06-30 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
In article <4mybl7kdal.fsf@pares.gsyc.inf.uc3m.es>,
raul@pares.gsyc.inf.uc3m.es (Raul Barral Tamayo) wrote:
> Only a a couple of words :-), the idea behind GCC is a portable
compiler
> with the only need to change the front-end to incorporate a new
language
> and the back-end to add a new architecture so I think you could use the
> GNAT front-end and you could make a Mac back-end, about this last I
have
> only heard about a language to describe it something similar to
lex/yacc.
>
> My 0.02$, raul.
>
> In article <Dtppz2.4DM@world.std.com> bobduff@world.std.com (Robert A
Duff)
> writes:
> In article <4r023h$jt2@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, ErkoDJK
<erkodjk@aol.com>
> wrote:
> >Some friends and I have a crazy idea. We want to build an Ada 95
compiler
> >targeted for the Macintosh computer (without requiring Unix, like
> >GNAT/GCC). To that end, I would like to ask the Ada and compiler
experts
> >here (and anyone else who wishes to respond) for some information,
> >including, just how insane are we?
---------------------------------------------------------------
Our team is the one that is currently porting the GNAT compiler to MachTen
UNIX on the Macintosh and we examined the feasibility of targeting MPW
instead of MachTen. Our decision to use MachTen was largely predicated on
the cost-saving that we obtained by using the excellent capabilities that
MachTen provided (especially GCC).
IMHO, MPW is essentially a UNIX lookalike with less capability so a port of
GNAT should be possible. Here are some things to consider:
1) GNAT requires GCC (or equivalent);
2) GCC requires an existing C compiler to start the bootstrap of GCC;
3) The initial GNAT bootstrap is (traditionally) a "cross-compile" from
another system;
4) Our team may be willing, informally, to answer questions about our GNAT
port
if you decide to go this route;
5) with Tenon's new pricing, MPW is no longer significantly less expensive.
Please do keep us informed if you decide to go this route, the more good
Ada compilers on the market, the better for us all!
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
* Re: Building an Ada compiler
1996-06-28 0:00 ` Robert A Duff
1996-06-28 0:00 ` Ruediger Berlich
1996-06-28 0:00 ` Raul Barral Tamayo
@ 1996-06-28 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
2 siblings, 0 replies; 26+ messages in thread
From: Robert Dewar @ 1996-06-28 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
Bob asked:
"Anybody remember who said this (in regard to hand-made telescope
mirrors)? It's easier to make a 3-inch mirror and a 5-inch mirror, than
to make a 5-inch mirror."
I know this as referencing 6" and 8", which makes a whole lot more sense,
since a 3" mirror is tough to make (because it's small and fiddly).
I don't know who first said that, but
speaking as someone who built an 8" mirror first, I would have to say
they are probably right :-)
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
* Re: Building an Ada compiler
1996-06-28 0:00 Building an Ada compiler ErkoDJK
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
1996-06-28 0:00 ` Robert A Duff
@ 1996-06-29 0:00 ` Mark Eichin
[not found] ` <4r4c6m$bec@eri1.erinet.com>
1996-06-29 0:00 ` Tucker Taft
1996-07-01 0:00 ` Ken Garlington
5 siblings, 1 reply; 26+ messages in thread
From: Mark Eichin @ 1996-06-29 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
Just because the GNAT mac ports currently require machten, doesn't
mean that a native-mac port is out of reach... there are already GCC
ports to Mac that run under MPW (or there were a few years ago, before
the boycott ended - so they should be easier to find now.)
If you've got at least one unix-gcc wizard and one mac-wizard,
(preferably in the same body :-) you can probably make a good estimate
of what it would take to get GNAT to use that gcc support (I don't
actually know if it is up-to-date in the current FSF release.) Then
the big challenge is the Ada Runtime; again, look at the example gnat
ones and figure out how/if yo can do that kind of thing under macos...
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
* Re: Building an Ada compiler
1996-06-28 0:00 Building an Ada compiler ErkoDJK
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
1996-06-29 0:00 ` Mark Eichin
@ 1996-06-29 0:00 ` Tucker Taft
1996-07-01 0:00 ` Ken Garlington
5 siblings, 0 replies; 26+ messages in thread
From: Tucker Taft @ 1996-06-29 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
ErkoDJK (erkodjk@aol.com) wrote:
: Some friends and I have a crazy idea. We want to build an Ada 95 compiler
: targeted for the Macintosh computer (without requiring Unix, like
: GNAT/GCC). ...
You might be interested in the Mac version of AppletMagic(r),
and Ada 95 => Java byte-code compiler. An alpha release of
this is available at:
http://www.inmet.com/javadir/download/
It runs on 68k Macs (and presumably PPC using emulation) without
needing "MachTen."
As far as your other question, building a compiler, or interpreter,
for any of the major object-oriented languages, is a big job.
Much more practical would be to do the work to rehost GNAT/GCC
to MacOS. There is nothing inherently hard about this rehost,
though of course it does require a desire to "dig into" the GNAT/GCC
sources enough to find their host dependencies. Both the Metrowerks
and the Symantec compilers on the Mac come with pretty complete
Unix emulation libraries, so it isn't too bad rehosting a Unix-oriented
program to the Mac with either of these development systems.
: Thank you for your help,
: David
-Tucker Taft stt@inmet.com http://www.inmet.com/~stt/
Intermetrics, Inc. Cambridge, MA USA
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread
* Re: Building an Ada compiler
1996-06-28 0:00 Building an Ada compiler ErkoDJK
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
1996-06-29 0:00 ` Tucker Taft
@ 1996-07-01 0:00 ` Ken Garlington
5 siblings, 0 replies; 26+ messages in thread
From: Ken Garlington @ 1996-07-01 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
ErkoDJK wrote:
>
> Some friends and I have a crazy idea. We want to build an Ada 95 compiler
> targeted for the Macintosh computer (without requiring Unix, like
> GNAT/GCC).
Beware! As I now understand it, the Machten shell just does the things that
MPW does for Meridian - provides a command-line interface for issuing compiler
commands. The output of the compiler runs on MacOS. Machten isn't used like A/UX,
to completely replace MacOS as the operating environment.
So, if you're saying that you have a better alternative than Machten to do the
MPW task, knock your self out. Otherwise, as I understand it, there's no need
to go build another MPW-type shell.
--
LMTAS - "Our Brand Means Quality"
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread