Ada for OS/2 (was Re: Linux faster than OS/2...)

Ada for OS/2 (was Re: Linux faster than OS/2...)

[system]

I am crossposting this to comp.lang.ada, comp.os.os2.setup.misc,
comp.os.os2.programmer.misc, comp.os.os2.programmer.oop

erdmann@ibm.net writes:
>"@ribs.ssesco.com (" William Nau") writes:
>>: I seems i should use Linux when it comes done to processor intensive 
>>: jobs like numerical jobs. 

>>I think the conclusion is drawn too quickly.

>Just to clarify, how i concluded this figure. I did a compilation of
>a package of 5 Ada 95 modules and compiled this on both Systems. The 
>difference of the elapse time was 25 %.

I would not necessily expect OS/2's compiler to have the same effeciency
as Linux's.  Assuming the hardware is identical the other question I have 
(not having read the original post) is whether you were running a GUI on 
Linux?

=====================================================================

This does bring up another question, GNAT provides a free ADA compilier
for OS/2 (among other OSes).   I am given to believe that it was
originally written with gov't funding but currently is only upgraded
because one of the primary programmers likes OS/2.

One way to improve the attention given to the OS/2 port and assure its
continued existance would be for "somebody" to purchase a maintenance
contract with ACT (the company that writes GNAT).  I don't know
the cost but I am fairly certain that this would be rather a bit
much for an individual but if we could pool 20-100 people who are
willing to chip in a not small amount on an ongoing basis
(I am _GUESSING_ at $50/year or so depending on lots of things)...

Robert

Morphis@physics.niu.edu
Real Men change diapers

Re: Ada for OS/2 (was Re: Linux faster than OS/2...)

[Robert Dewar]

Ralph asks

<<What about the ext2-os2 file system drivers. Does the use of a Linux
style
file system boost the performance ?
>>

In the only experiment we did on this, using the linux style file system
substantially slowed down compilation speed on OS/2.

Re: Ada for OS/2 (was Re: Linux faster than OS/2...)

[Robert Dewar]

Robert said

<<I would not necessily expect OS/2's compiler to have the same effeciency
as Linux's.  Assuming the hardware is identical the other question I have
(not having read the original post) is whether you were running a GUI on
Linux?>>

  We find some things compile faster in OS/2, and others compile faster
  in Linux. Be careful that memory and disk support are similar. One
  factor that hurts OS/2 noticebly is the pathetic limit of 2 megs on
  the HPFS cache size. In some situations, using FAT on OS/2 will speed
  up compilations due to the bigger cache size.

<<This does bring up another question, GNAT provides a free ADA compilier
for OS/2 (among other OSes).   I am given to believe that it was
originally written with gov't funding but currently is only upgraded
because one of the primary programmers likes OS/2.>>

  GNAT is free software in the GNU sense, it is a front end for the
  GCC compiler, which has been adapted to handle Ada 95. The port is
  maintained by Ada Core Technologies, and it is maintained because
  we have commercial customers who provide sufficient support to make
  this continued maintenance supportable for us. It is also true that
  one of the primary programmers likes OS/2 (me!)

<<One way to improve the attention given to the OS/2 port and assure its
continued existance would be for "somebody" to purchase a maintenance
contract with ACT (the company that writes GNAT).  I don't know
the cost but I am fairly certain that this would be rather a bit
much for an individual but if we could pool 20-100 people who are
willing to chip in a not small amount on an ongoing basis
(I am _GUESSING_ at $50/year or so depending on lots of things)...>>

  Well our maintenance contracts are based on the total number of
  programmers using Ada, so this model is not applicable. But in any
  case, fear not! The OS/2 port is fully maintained. You can obtain
  the public version of the compiler from many FTP sites, including
  cs.nyu.edu. If you are interested in commercial support for GNAT
  on OS/2 or any other platform, send email to info@gnat.com for
  an electronic copy of our brochure, or visit www.gnat.com.

  P.S. If you really think $5000/year would support this work, you are
  somewhat off in your calculation. That is about 2-3 weeks of work in
  a year (we are a commercial company, not hobbyists fiddling in our
  spare time). The cost of maintaining the OS/2 port is very much higher
  than that. However, as I say, no need to worry, it looks like, at least
  for now, there is (just) enough commercial interest to keep the OS/2
  port viable (it helps of course that I like OS/2 :-)

Robert Dewar
Ada Core Technologies

Re: Ada for OS/2 (was Re: Linux faster than OS/2...)

[Robert Dewar]

Robert said

<<I would not necessily expect OS/2's compiler to have the same effeciency
as Linux's.  Assuming the hardware is identical the other question I have
(not having read the original post) is whether you were running a GUI on
Linux?
>>

One clarification here. The compilers running on OS/2 and Linux are
virtually identical code. So any differences you see in performance are
not attributable to the compiler itself, but to OS and hardware 
considerations. As I noted in my previous post, my guess is that, if
you are running on identical hardware, the most likely difference comes
from the small HPFS cache size in OS/2.

Re: Ada for OS/2 (was Re: Linux faster than OS/2...)

[system]

dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) writes:

>Robert said

><<I would not necessily expect OS/2's compiler to have the same effeciency
>as Linux's.  Assuming the hardware is identical the other question I have
>(not having read the original post) is whether you were running a GUI on
>Linux?>>

>  We find some things compile faster in OS/2, and others compile faster
>  in Linux. Be careful that memory and disk support are similar. One
>  factor that hurts OS/2 noticebly is the pathetic limit of 2 megs on
>  the HPFS cache size. 

<heh> Gee, where have I heard that complaint before?

><<This does bring up another question, GNAT provides a free ADA compilier
>for OS/2 (among other OSes).   I am given to believe that it was
>originally written with gov't funding but currently is only upgraded
>because one of the primary programmers likes OS/2.>>
>
>  GNAT is free software in the GNU sense, it is a front end for the
>  GCC compiler, which has been adapted to handle Ada 95. The port is
>  maintained by Ada Core Technologies, and it is maintained because
>  we have commercial customers who provide sufficient support to make
>  this continued maintenance supportable for us. 

Ah, my mistake :(

>  It is also true that one of the primary programmers likes OS/2 (me!)

thought so, but didn't care to put my foot in my mouth any more than
necessary.

>  Well our maintenance contracts are based on the total number of
>  programmers using Ada, so this model is not applicable. 

I had assumed that something would have to be worked out, but
thankfully we don't have to worry about it.

>  The cost of maintaining the OS/2 port is very much higher
>  than [$5000/year]

Interesting.

Thanks for the reply,

Robert
Morphis@physics.niu.edu
Real Men change diapers

Re: Ada for OS/2 (was Re: Linux faster than OS/2...)

[Ralph Paul]

Robert Dewar wrote:
> 
> One clarification here. The compilers running on OS/2 and Linux are
> virtually identical code. So any differences you see in performance are
> not attributable to the compiler itself, but to OS and hardware
> considerations. As I noted in my previous post, my guess is that, if
> you are running on identical hardware, the most likely difference comes
> from the small HPFS cache size in OS/2.

What about the ext2-os2 file system drivers. Does the use of a Linux
style
file system boost the performance ?


CU/2,

Ralph Paul

Re: Ada for OS/2 (was Re: Linux faster than OS/2...)

[Jerry van Dijk]

In <33BABA02.2762@ibm.net>, Ralph Paul <repaul@ibm.net> writes:

>What about the ext2-os2 file system drivers. Does the use of a Linux
>style
>file system boost the performance ?

If you have sufficient RAM (64Mb or more I would guess) setting:

        gccload=10
        gccopt=-pipe

does give quite a boost.

-- Jerry van Dijk | email: jdijk@acm.org
-- Consultant     |       TEAM ADA
-- Ordina Finance |    Leiden, Holland

Re: Ada for OS/2 (was Re: Linux faster than OS/2...)

[Geert Bosch]

In comp.lang.ada system@niuhep.physics.niu.edu wrote:
 ``I would not necessily expect OS/2's compiler to have the same effeciency
   as Linux's.  Assuming the hardware is identical the other question I have 
   (not having read the original post) is whether you were running a GUI on 
   Linux?''

Please use emxload -e -gnat before doing any performance tests. This
keeps the GNAT binaries in VM (real memory or swap space) instead
of reloading and relocating them every time they are needed. This
makes a huge difference in speed, esp.  with small files. 
Because filesystem caching in Linux is better, this is less of an issue
with Linux. 

Also keep in mind that you are mostly testing operating systems and I/O
speed. The actual code that will be executed is almost the same, so given
enough memory and fast enough I/O the performance will be not much
different on Linux as on OS/2.

Regards,
   Geert

Re: Ada for OS/2 (was Re: Linux faster than OS/2...)

[Matthieu Willm]

What max. cache size did you use with ext2-os2 ? The default is 256 Kb
and is small. But with larger cache sizes (4 Mb on my 40 Mb system)
compilation speed of ext2-os2 itself is quite fast.

Robert Dewar wrote:
> 
> Ralph asks
> 
> <<What about the ext2-os2 file system drivers. Does the use of a Linux
> style
> file system boost the performance ?
> >>
> 
> In the only experiment we did on this, using the linux style file system
> substantially slowed down compilation speed on OS/2.

Re: Ada for OS/2 (was Re: Linux faster than OS/2...)

[Robert Dewar]

Haug said

<<and set "SET GCCOPT=-pipe" in your config.sys to prevent
gnat from using tempfiles. It uses pipes instead.
>>

I tried this, it made absolutely zero difference in speed. Are you just
guessing that this should speed up GNAT, or is that your actual experience.

Re: Ada for OS/2 (was Re: Linux faster than OS/2...)

[Geert Bosch]

[Some newsgroups removed]

In comp.lang.ada erdmann@ibm.net wrote:
   I have re done my tests again based on the information in mind
   i did receive so far. The results for a 5 packages OS/2 PM
   program are:

           OS/2 : 107 sec   
           Linux:  95 sec

What you should look at is CPU load during compile which should be
100%. A lower figure indicates that the system is waiting for I/O,
which can be caused by a diskcache that is too small, disabled
lazy-write caching, or swapping due to insufficient memory. 

When CPU-load is straight 100% you know you can't do much better.
In that case the difference of 10% seems high to me for compilation.
(Binding and linking is another story, the binder is I/O bound and
the linker is system-dependent.)

Regards,
   Geert

Re: Ada for OS/2 (was Re: Linux faster than OS/2...)

[erdmann]

In <5peljs$i2p$1@gonzo.sun3.iaf.nl>, Geert Bosch <geert@gonzo.sun3.iaf.nl> writes:
>In comp.lang.ada system@niuhep.physics.niu.edu wrote:
> ``I would not necessily expect OS/2's compiler to have the same effeciency
>   as Linux's.  Assuming the hardware is identical the other question I have 
>   (not having read the original post) is whether you were running a GUI on 
>   Linux?''
>
>Please use emxload -e -gnat before doing any performance tests. This
>keeps the GNAT binaries in VM (real memory or swap space) instead
>of reloading and relocating them every time they are needed. This
>makes a huge difference in speed, esp.  with small files. 
>Because filesystem caching in Linux is better, this is less of an issue
>with Linux. 
>
>Also keep in mind that you are mostly testing operating systems and I/O
>speed. The actual code that will be executed is almost the same, so given
>enough memory and fast enough I/O the performance will be not much
>different on Linux as on OS/2.
>
I have re done my tests again based on the information in mind i did receive
so far. The results for a 5 packages OS/2 PM program are:

        OS/2 : 107 sec   
        Linux:  95 sec

In order to get this result i did close all windows of the WPS displaying
the filesystem. Now the difference in performance is about 10 percent. But
this seems to be the best!

Michael

Re: Ada for OS/2 (was Re: Linux faster than OS/2...)

[Haug Buerger]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 908 bytes --]


On 3 Jul 1997 00:44:12 +0200, Geert Bosch <geert@gonzo.sun3.iaf.nl> wrote:
>In comp.lang.ada system@niuhep.physics.niu.edu wrote:
> ``I would not necessily expect OS/2's compiler to have the same effeciency
>   as Linux's.  Assuming the hardware is identical the other question I have
>   (not having read the original post) is whether you were running a GUI on
>   Linux?''
>
>Please use emxload -e -gnat before doing any performance tests. This
>keeps the GNAT binaries in VM (real memory or swap space) instead
>of reloading and relocating them every time they are needed. This
>makes a huge difference in speed, esp.  with small files.
>Because filesystem caching in Linux is better, this is less of an issue
>with Linux.

and set "SET GCCOPT=-pipe" in your config.sys to prevent
gnat from using tempfiles. It uses pipes instead.

Haug

--

Save a tree use email to haug@zesi.ruhr.de (Haug B�rger)

Re: Ada for OS/2 (was Re: Linux faster than OS/2...)

[Michael Erdmann]

Robert Dewar wrote:
> 
> Robert said
> 
> <<I would not necessily expect OS/2's compiler to have the same effeciency
> as Linux's.  Assuming the hardware is identical the other question I have
> (not having read the original post) is whether you were running a GUI on
> Linux?
> >>
> 
> One clarification here. The compilers running on OS/2 and Linux are
> virtually identical code. So any differences you see in performance are
> not attributable to the compiler itself, but to OS and hardware
> considerations. As I noted in my previous post, my guess is that, if
> you are running on identical hardware, the most likely difference comes
> from the small HPFS cache size in OS/2.
I doubt this, because the cache of my Linux installtion is about 2 MB.
Earlier in the discussion some body mentioned the fact, that the emx
dll are ported from unix to OS/2 in a inefficient way. Could this
the probem ?

Re: Ada for OS/2 (was Re: Linux faster than OS/2...)

[Robert Dewar]

Michael said

<<I have done this today. It seems now to work a bit faster.>>

That's not very convincing :-)
Did you actually measure the difference.
I tried the -pipe and it made no difference at all to the 
compilation speed of several examples I tried.

But a lot depends on your setup. In my setup, I have 80 megs and never
swap, so in fact disk IO is completely overlapped (I tried an interesting
experiment which was to put

sources, objects, temp files, ali files

for the library all in a RAM disk, and compile the library. It took, 
within measurable accuracy EXACTLY the same time as using a disk with
the normal HPFS cache.

That's why I don't think -pipe will help. If you have a decent amount
of RAM and a 2 meg cache, then the temporary files get written to the
cache, and read from the cache. Sure, they get written to disk as well,
but these are lazy writes from the cache which can be completely
overlapped with computation.

Re: Ada for OS/2 (was Re: Linux faster than OS/2...)

[Michael Erdmann]

Robert Dewar wrote:
> 
> Michael said
> 
> <<I have done this today. It seems now to work a bit faster.>>
> 
> That's not very convincing :-)
> Did you actually measure the difference.
> I tried the -pipe and it made no difference at all to the
> compilation speed of several examples I tried.
I have repeated the measurement. The difference is not measurable,
what happend was more simple. I did increase my ram cache from
1.5M to 2M and this caused most of the enhancement in the speed.

> 
> But a lot depends on your setup. In my setup, I have 80 megs and never
> swap, so in fact disk IO is completely overlapped (I tried an interesting
> experiment which was to put
> 
> sources, objects, temp files, ali files
> 
> for the library all in a RAM disk, and compile the library. It took,
> within measurable accuracy EXACTLY the same time as using a disk with
> the normal HPFS cache.
> 
I dont have 80 MB, but i allready thought about installing a ram disk
for the same purpose.

> That's why I don't think -pipe will help. If you have a decent amount
> of RAM and a 2 meg cache, then the temporary files get written to the
> cache, and read from the cache. Sure, they get written to disk as well,
> but these are lazy writes from the cache which can be completely
> overlapped with computation.
I agree on this and i am not going to install any ramsdisk.

By the way i have redone some measurement based upon a software package 
called rudstone. I did take the sources from the 1995 Ada CDROM from
Walnut Creek and done the same measurements:

		Compilation+Build	Execution 
	OS/2            150 sec		   97 
	Linux		135 sec		  114

Compiling is slower in OS/2 but the execution time for the benchmark
is smaler, meaning better performance. 
What i understood so far, i have to accept some performance degrade
for the compilation in favor of the OS/2 features, but the performance 
of programms is not automaticaly less good then with Linux. 
As a result i decided to stay with OS/2 instead of switching to Linux.

Michael

Re: Ada for OS/2 (was Re: Linux faster than OS/2...)

[Michael Erdmann]

Geert Bosch wrote:
> 
> [Some newsgroups removed]
> 
> In comp.lang.ada erdmann@ibm.net wrote:
>    I have re done my tests again based on the information in mind
>    i did receive so far. The results for a 5 packages OS/2 PM
>    program are:
> 
>            OS/2 : 107 sec
>            Linux:  95 sec
> 
> What you should look at is CPU load during compile which should be
> 100%. A lower figure indicates that the system is waiting for I/O,
> which can be caused by a diskcache that is too small, disabled
> lazy-write caching, or swapping due to insufficient memory.
> 
> When CPU-load is straight 100% you know you can't do much better.
> In that case the difference of 10% seems high to me for compilation.
> (Binding and linking is another story, the binder is I/O bound and
> the linker is system-dependent.)

The CPU is 100 % under load!

Michael

Re: Ada for OS/2

[Geert Bosch]

A few weeks ago, Haug said
   <<and set "SET GCCOPT=-pipe" in your config.sys to prevent
   gnat from using tempfiles. It uses pipes instead.>>

Robert Dewar replied:
   <<I tried this, it made absolutely zero difference in speed.
   Are you just guessing that this should speed up GNAT, or is that
   your actual experience.>>

One last note: not only does using SET GCCOPT=-pipe not have any
effect on compilation speed, it does introduce some problems. When
GNAT generates informal messages, these messages get passed to the
assembler input with an error as result. The reason is that these
informal messages are written to standard out, just like the assembly
code when using pipes.

This happens when a compilation generates no code (compiling a
generic for example) and when using -gnatv. So I would recommend
not to use GCCOPT=-pipe with GNAT.

Regards,
   Geert

Re: Ada for OS/2

[Tarjei T. Jensen]

Geert Bosch wrote:
> One last note: not only does using SET GCCOPT=-pipe not have any
> effect on compilation speed, it does introduce some problems. When
> GNAT generates informal messages, these messages get passed to the
> assembler input with an error as result. The reason is that these
> informal messages are written to standard out, just like the assembly
> code when using pipes.

This is rather disturbing as I would expect messages from the compiler
to be written to stderr. Especially when stdout is other use.

I would think that the handling of messages in the compiler needs some
adjustments with regards to where they go.

Greetings,

-- 
// Tarjei T. Jensen 
//    tarjei@online.no || voice +47 51 62 85 58
//   Support you local rescue centre: GET LOST!

Re: Ada for OS/2

[Robert Dewar]

Tarjei said

<<This is rather disturbing as I would expect messages from the compiler
to be written to stderr. Especially when stdout is other use.

I would think that the handling of messages in the compiler needs some
adjustments with regards to where they go.>>


Read the documentation. Long form messages including the source go to
stdout (since nothing else goes to stdout from the compiler, this makes 
perfectly good sense, also the compiler listing goes to stdout).
Brief form error messages go to stderr.

The use of the pipe option is completely useless in any case, as I
pointed out a while ago, so the fact that it does not work is hardly
significant!

Ada for OS/2

[Paul Cass]

Is anyone aware of an Ada compiler for OS/2 other than Gnat?
We have been using the Alsys OS/2 Ada compiler for about ten years or so
with no problems.  However the latest fixpack for OS/2 Version 4 and
WarpServer 4.0 will not run either the Alsys Ada shell, compiler or any
other Ada program built with this compiler (Version 5.5).  Using the
VisualAge C debugger revealed a problem early in program execution where the
errant program attempts to load from a memory address down at about
00000056H which causes a trap.  I think it is trying to load something from
the environment.

Obvious solutions are: 1 - don't use the fixpacks; 2 - move to WinNT.  3 -
use Gnat.  Does anyone have any other suggestions?

Tks
Paul

Re: Ada for OS/2

[Robert Dewar]

In article <l0yi4.1800$YM1.3171@newsfeeds.bigpond.com>,
  "Paul Cass" <paulcass@bigpond.com> wrote:
> Is anyone aware of an Ada compiler for OS/2 other than Gnat?

GNAT is fully supported on OS/2 (in fact two of us at ACT,
Geert Bosch and Robert Dewar are enthusiastic OS/2 users,
and use OS/2 for our personal development work). It is, like
all other supported versions of GNAT a full language
implementation, and is in commercial use by customers.
There are no other Ada 95 implementations for OS/2.

If you are interested in serious use of Ada on OS/2, feel
free to contact ACT (see www.gnat.com) for details.

Robert Dewar
Ada Core Technologies


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

ADA for OS/2

[John Poltorak]

GNAT 3.13p includes OS/2 patches but building an OS/2 binary is a
non-trivial task.

Is there any possibility that I can I get hold of an OS/2 binary from
anywhere?

--
John

Re: ADA for OS/2

[David W. Noon]

On Sun, 3 Jul 3901 08:11:30, John Poltorak <jp@eyup.org> wrote:

> GNAT 3.13p includes OS/2 patches but building an OS/2 binary is a
> non-trivial task.
> 
> Is there any possibility that I can I get hold of an OS/2 binary from
> anywhere?

The possibility exists.

I have GNAT on a CD from 1995 that I plan to use to build an OS/2 
version. If that goes well then I will d/l a newer cut of GNAT and 
give that a shot. This will take a couple of weeks to organize, as I 
am a little busy on other things just now.

Regards

Dave

[Remove spamtraps to reply by e-mail]

Re: ADA for OS/2

[John Poltorak]

"David W. Noon" wrote:

> On Sun, 3 Jul 3901 08:11:30, John Poltorak <jp@eyup.org> wrote:
>
> > GNAT 3.13p includes OS/2 patches but building an OS/2 binary is a
> > non-trivial task.
> >
> > Is there any possibility that I can I get hold of an OS/2 binary from
> > anywhere?
>
> The possibility exists.
>
> I have GNAT on a CD from 1995 that I plan to use to build an OS/2
> version. If that goes well then I will d/l a newer cut of GNAT and
> give that a shot. This will take a couple of weeks to organize, as I
> am a little busy on other things just now.

I got as far as applying the OS/2 patches to the source code but apparently
you need to
have 3.12 installed as 3.13 is built on top of that. A few people are
trying to build it and we are
currently discussing progress on the os2-unix mailing list and you are
welcome to join in, which
you can do by using this link:-

mailto:os2-unix-request@eyup.org?body=subscribe

>
> Regards
>
> Dave
>
> [Remove spamtraps to reply by e-mail]

--
John

Re: ADA for OS/2

[tmoran]

Robert Dewar used to say he preferred OS/2 and always made sure Gnat
ran there.  When did he stop?

Re: ADA for OS/2

[John Poltorak]

tmoran@acm.org wrote:

> Robert Dewar used to say he preferred OS/2 and always made sure Gnat
> ran there.  When did he stop?

OS/2 patches are included in the source, so I'm sure it runs on OS/2,
it's that there is no compiled version available for 3.13p AFAIK.

--
John

Re: ADA for OS/2

[Matthias Kretschmer]

On Tue, 03 Jul 2001 11:56:08 +0100
John Poltorak <jp@eyup.org> wrote:

> "David W. Noon" wrote:
> 
> > On Sun, 3 Jul 3901 08:11:30, John Poltorak <jp@eyup.org> wrote:
> >
> > > GNAT 3.13p includes OS/2 patches but building an OS/2 binary is a
> > > non-trivial task.
> > >
> > > Is there any possibility that I can I get hold of an OS/2 binary from
> > > anywhere?
> >
> > The possibility exists.
> >
> > I have GNAT on a CD from 1995 that I plan to use to build an OS/2
> > version. If that goes well then I will d/l a newer cut of GNAT and
> > give that a shot. This will take a couple of weeks to organize, as I
> > am a little busy on other things just now.
> 
> I got as far as applying the OS/2 patches to the source code but apparently
> you need to
> have 3.12 installed as 3.13 is built on top of that. A few people are

have a look at hobbes or leo - there you should find at least gnat 3.12 precompiled for os/2 using emx-environment. or try www.os2.org iirc it has a search engine for software.

> trying to build it and we are
> currently discussing progress on the os2-unix mailing list and you are
> welcome to join in, which
> you can do by using this link:-
> 
> mailto:os2-unix-request@eyup.org?body=subscribe
> 
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Dave
> >
> > [Remove spamtraps to reply by e-mail]
> 
> --
> John
> 

Re: ADA for OS/2

[John Poltorak]

Matthias Kretschmer wrote:

> On Tue, 03 Jul 2001 11:56:08 +0100
> John Poltorak <jp@eyup.org> wrote:
>
> > "David W. Noon" wrote:
> >
> > > On Sun, 3 Jul 3901 08:11:30, John Poltorak <jp@eyup.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > > GNAT 3.13p includes OS/2 patches but building an OS/2 binary is a
> > > > non-trivial task.
> > > >
> > > > Is there any possibility that I can I get hold of an OS/2 binary from
> > > > anywhere?
> > >
> > > The possibility exists.
> > >
> > > I have GNAT on a CD from 1995 that I plan to use to build an OS/2
> > > version. If that goes well then I will d/l a newer cut of GNAT and
> > > give that a shot. This will take a couple of weeks to organize, as I
> > > am a little busy on other things just now.
> >
> > I got as far as applying the OS/2 patches to the source code but apparently
> > you need to
> > have 3.12 installed as 3.13 is built on top of that. A few people are
>
> have a look at hobbes or leo - there you should find at least gnat 3.12 precompiled for os/2 using emx-environment. or try www.os2.org iirc it has a search engine for software.

I installed 3.12 yesterday, but find the instructions for building 3.13p difficult to follow.

From README.BUILD:-

This installation starts from the sources of GCC 2.8.1

  -- Apply patches (gcc-281.dif) from the src directory.

Do I really need to get hold of the source for gcc 2.8.1, just to be able to build 3.13p ?

If so, do I just run:-  ?

patch -p0 <gcc-281.dif



>
>
> > > Regards
> > >
> > > Dave
> > >
> > > [Remove spamtraps to reply by e-mail]
> >
> > --
> > John
> >

--
John

Re: ADA for OS/2

[Stephen Leake]

John Poltorak <jp@eyup.org> writes:

> From README.BUILD:-
> 
> This installation starts from the sources of GCC 2.8.1
> 
>   -- Apply patches (gcc-281.dif) from the src directory.
> 
> Do I really need to get hold of the source for gcc 2.8.1,
> just to be able to build 3.13p ?

Yes. 

Why is this surprising? You are building a compiler from sources; part
of the sources for that compiler is gcc 2.8.1.

Getting hold of the source for gcc 2.8.1 is no harder than getting
hold of the source for gnat 3.13p.

Perhaps you are implying that the source distribution for gnat 3.13p
should include the source distribution of gcc 2.8.1. That might be
convenient for you, but it is common practice to simply reference an
independent source distribution, when that imposes no significant
burden on the user.

> If so, do I just run:- ?
> 
> patch -p0 <gcc-281.dif

Yes. It would be better if this specific instruction were in the
README file, but a quick read of patch --help makes it pretty clear.
In general, it is assumed people installing from source can figure out
how to use the required tools.

-- 
-- Stephe

Re: ADA for OS/2

[Larry Kilgallen]

In article <u7kxnfrm6.fsf@gsfc.nasa.gov>, Stephen Leake <stephen.a.leake.1@gsfc.nasa.gov> writes:

> In general, it is assumed people installing from source can figure out
> how to use the required tools.

In general, that is true, but in the case of GNAT it seems that ACT
is only releasing binaries for certain platforms these days, which
means installation from source becomes more commonplace and is not
at all based on expertise (especially in view of ACT's statement
that they feel the public releases should be for student use).

Re: ADA for OS/2

[Robert Dewar]

John Poltorak <jp@eyup.org> wrote in message news:<3B431D22.C20FF8BD@eyup.org>...
> This installation starts from the sources of GCC 2.8.1
> 
>   -- Apply patches (gcc-281.dif) from the src directory.
> 
> Do I really need to get hold of the source for gcc 2.8.1, just to be 
> able to build 3.13p ?

Of course! And in any case, you need to assume that ALL the directions
are ones that should be followed. Generally it is assumed that you are
completely familiar with building gcc on the given target. I would
start by making sure you understand how to obtain the sources for gcc
on OS/2 and build from sources, only at the stage that you feel
reasonably familiar with the gcc build process and its make file can
you reasonably expect to be able to build GNAT.
 
> If so, do I just run:-  ?
> 
> patch -p0 <gcc-281.dif

You need to be at the stage where you don't need to ask such
questions. So once again, what I advise is obtain the GCC 2.8.1
sources and make sure that you can bootstrap a working version
of GNU C for OS/2, then once you have sorted out the problems in
doing that, you can go back to the GNAT build instructions and
they should be clear. If you can't build GNU-C, you are not going
to be able to build GNAT.

Re: ADA for OS/2

[John Poltorak]

Robert Dewar wrote:

>
> > If so, do I just run:-  ?
> >
> > patch -p0 <gcc-281.dif
>
> You need to be at the stage where you don't need to ask such
> questions. So once again, what I advise is obtain the GCC 2.8.1
> sources and make sure that you can bootstrap a working version
> of GNU C for OS/2, then once you have sorted out the problems in
> doing that, you can go back to the GNAT build instructions and
> they should be clear. If you can't build GNU-C, you are not going
> to be able to build GNAT.

Unfortunately, I don't really want to actually build GNAT 3.13p, I just want to use
it on OS/2.
Is there any way to get hold of a pre-built binary just like NT people can?

--
John

Re: ADA for OS/2

[John Poltorak]

Stephen Leake wrote:

> John Poltorak <jp@eyup.org> writes:
>
> > From README.BUILD:-
> >
> > This installation starts from the sources of GCC 2.8.1
> >
> >   -- Apply patches (gcc-281.dif) from the src directory.
> >
> > Do I really need to get hold of the source for gcc 2.8.1,
> > just to be able to build 3.13p ?
>
> Yes.
>
> Why is this surprising? You are building a compiler from sources; part
> of the sources for that compiler is gcc 2.8.1.
>
> Getting hold of the source for gcc 2.8.1 is no harder than getting
> hold of the source for gnat 3.13p.
>
> Perhaps you are implying that the source distribution for gnat 3.13p
> should include the source distribution of gcc 2.8.1. That might be
> convenient for you, but it is common practice to simply reference an
> independent source distribution, when that imposes no significant
> burden on the user.
>
> > If so, do I just run:- ?
> >
> > patch -p0 <gcc-281.dif
>
> Yes. It would be better if this specific instruction were in the
> README file, but a quick read of patch --help makes it pretty clear.
> In general, it is assumed people installing from source can figure out
> how to use the required tools.

It really does seem unfair... If you use NT everything is on a plate. You
just download a binary archive and you can be happily using GNAT 3.13p
within a few minutes without requiring any knowledge of building
compilers. If you use OS/2, the same task is going to take several weeks
or months. I don't know anyone who has been successful building OS/2
binaries, which  kind of begs the question who is the OS/2 patch designed
for? I note the OS/2 patch is 8000 lines long which is twice as long as
all the other patches put together, and I think if someone is going to the
trouble of providing such complicated patches, their work will not be very
well appreciated if no one can make any use of it. Maybe providing a
simple build script is all that is necessary to make it work...

>
> --
> -- Stephe

--
John

Re: ADA for OS/2

[Robert Dewar]

Kilgallen@eisner.decus.org.nospam (Larry Kilgallen) wrote in message news:<0fqDUcnQj8JQ@eisner.encompasserve.org>...

> In general, that is true, but in the case of GNAT it seems that ACT
> is only releasing binaries for certain platforms these days, which
> means installation from source becomes more commonplace and is not
> at all based on expertise (especially in view of ACT's statement
> that they feel the public releases should be for student use).

Most people will not be able to install GNAT from sources, since it
does indeed assume GCC expertise. It is definitely true that ACT is
not building public binaries for most platforms these days (our
current intention is to build binaries for GNU/Linux/x86 and for NT).
We expect that other public binaries wlil be built, distributed
and mirrored, by those who do know how, as happens for other GNU software.

Re: ADA for OS/2

[Windows.Only.Vendors]

On Thu, 5 Jul 2001 21:41:46, dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar) wrote:

> We expect that other public binaries wlil be built, distributed
> and mirrored, by those who do know how, as happens for other GNU software.
> 


This is not happening for OS/2 however. There are a number of us 
interested in getting this going and are willing to try but we need 
help. If for no other reason than maintaining and extending the scope 
of Ada to another area of computing. Isn't that what most of the 
discussions in this news group have been about over the last 5 years 
that I have followed  C.L.A? [other than a few java vs Ada vs Eiffel 
wars and the Rt. Rev. Colin James III entertainment from years past. 
What ever happened to the kook?]


Back to the topic at hand. By help, I am asking for some mentoring for
us, walk us through the process, do not assume what we know or don't 
know, in return we will document the method and steps and keep the 
knowledge available for orthers. As it is now when Robert Dewar and a 
few select others decide that Ada/2 is a waste of their time the skill
set is lost! I don't pretend to be able to write intricate code, I 
don't pretend to be a 'code rocket doctor', I am sincere about getting
this done for OS/2 though. I know there at least three of us currently
interested in building the beast, what do you say? A knowledge tranfer
is what we are asking for.

Tim Erickson



-- 
tjeric_k AT telusplanet_net
remove any underscores to get the proper address

Re: ADA for OS/2

[Ted Dennison]

In article <ywLYhRw4zi4W-pn2-DputPNMcYvqY@aigh168by26ya.ab.hsia.telus.net>,
Windows.Only.Vendors@Suck.Com says...

>This is not happening for OS/2 however. There are a number of us 
>interested in getting this going and are willing to try but we need 
>help. If for no other reason than maintaining and extending the scope 
..
>Back to the topic at hand. By help, I am asking for some mentoring for
>us, walk us through the process, do not assume what we know or don't 
>know, in return we will document the method and steps and keep the 
>knowledge available for orthers. As it is now when Robert Dewar and a 

Probably the best thing to do would be to just start slogging through the
process, and then appeal for help at the appropriate places when/if you get
stuck.

If you need help getting started, I'd first download the sources and read
through any instructions there. Then the next best thing to do would probably be
to appeal to the folks on the Gnatlist at
http://lyris.seas.gwu.edu/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=gnatlist&text_mode=0 . There
seem to be several people there who regularly build gnat from sources.

I haven't personally done this before. However, I have compiled gcc from sources
before (many years ago on SunOS). It did take me about 10 hours of work (mostly
due to slow compile times), but it really wasn't too horribly difficult. Don't
let anyone scare you off by throwing that in your face.


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

Re: ADA for OS/2

[Ted Dennison]

In article <5ee5b646.0107051341.2a0d4b42@posting.google.com>, Robert Dewar
says...
>Most people will not be able to install GNAT from sources, since it
>does indeed assume GCC expertise. It is definitely true that ACT is
>not building public binaries for most platforms these days (our
>current intention is to build binaries for GNU/Linux/x86 and for NT).
>We expect that other public binaries wlil be built, distributed
>and mirrored, by those who do know how, as happens for other GNU software.

Currently the situation is a bit warped because ACT essentially controls the
Gnat baseline. Of course ACT doesn't *have* to do anything. But on the other
hand, folks have been trained to expect a lot of from GNU software maintainers.

I think that once Gnat is in the GCC baseline (RSN, right?), its perfectly
reasonable to expect the community to build its own binaries for *all*
platforms, as well as to coordinate releases, etc. If ACT feels its in their
best interests to contribute to that effort, then great. But they are a
*company* and its about time we quit expecting them to do tons of stuff for us
for free, just because we'd like it.

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

Re: ADA for OS/2

[John Poltorak]

Ted Dennison wrote:

> In article <ywLYhRw4zi4W-pn2-DputPNMcYvqY@aigh168by26ya.ab.hsia.telus.net>,
> Windows.Only.Vendors@Suck.Com says...
>
>
> Probably the best thing to do would be to just start slogging through the
> process, and then appeal for help at the appropriate places when/if you get
> stuck.
>
> If you need help getting started, I'd first download the sources and read
> through any instructions there.

There is an immediate problem when attempting to follow an instruction like:-

  -- Apply patches (gcc-281.dif) from the src directory

... does this simply mean using the source straight from GNU, ie. :-

ftp://ftp.gnu.org/pub/gnu/gcc/gcc-2.8.1.tar.gz


or do I need to find and apply some EMX patches first to incorporate OS/2
enhancements?

And if so, which patches?

Any hints/tips, much appreciated...


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

--
John

Re: ADA for OS/2

[David W. Noon]

On Sun, 5 Jul 3901 21:57:20, John Poltorak <jp@eyup.org> wrote:

[snip]
> It really does seem unfair... If you use NT everything is on a plate. You
> just download a binary archive and you can be happily using GNAT 3.13p
> within a few minutes without requiring any knowledge of building
> compilers.

It is only right that software suppliers should have a lower 
expectation of the skills of Windows users: they have usually had the 
OS foisted on them when they are first "trying the water" in 
computing.

> If you use OS/2, the same task is going to take several weeks
> or months.

Not necessarily.

> I don't know anyone who has been successful building OS/2
> binaries, which  kind of begs the question who is the OS/2 patch designed
> for?

People like me, who have been programming for donkey's years and 
programming OS/2 for quite a few years within that period.

> I note the OS/2 patch is 8000 lines long which is twice as long as
> all the other patches put together, and I think if someone is going to the
> trouble of providing such complicated patches, their work will not be very
> well appreciated if no one can make any use of it. Maybe providing a
> simple build script is all that is necessary to make it work...

The term "build script" will cause many developers to shudder. The 
usual term is "makefile", but the exact nature of this is determined 
by the make utility one uses. I use DMAKE 4.0 for OS/2, and when I get
around to building GNAT that will be the maker I use, even if I have 
to coerce the makefile a bit. Even so, a makefile is not necessarily 
useful to an end-user; but if that end-user fancies himself as a 
programmer it *should* be enough.

Anyhow, watch the OS2PROG echo on Fidonet and see what turns up. I 
might also post an announcement here. The initial d/l site will be 
Pete Norloff's BBS, later Hobbes and Leo.

Regards

Dave

[Remove spamtraps to reply by e-mail]

Re: ADA for OS/2

[John Poltorak]

"David W. Noon" wrote:

> On Sun, 5 Jul 3901 21:57:20, John Poltorak <jp@eyup.org> wrote:
>
> [snip]
> > It really does seem unfair... If you use NT everything is on a plate. You
> > just download a binary archive and you can be happily using GNAT 3.13p
> > within a few minutes without requiring any knowledge of building
> > compilers.
>
> It is only right that software suppliers should have a lower
> expectation of the skills of Windows users: they have usually had the
> OS foisted on them when they are first "trying the water" in
> computing.
>
> > If you use OS/2, the same task is going to take several weeks
> > or months.
>
> Not necessarily.

I don't know if you realise what you are letting yourself in for...


> > I don't know anyone who has been successful building OS/2
> > binaries, which  kind of begs the question who is the OS/2 patch designed
> > for?
>
> People like me, who have been programming for donkey's years and
> programming OS/2 for quite a few years within that period.
>
> > I note the OS/2 patch is 8000 lines long which is twice as long as
> > all the other patches put together, and I think if someone is going to the
> > trouble of providing such complicated patches, their work will not be very
> > well appreciated if no one can make any use of it. Maybe providing a
> > simple build script is all that is necessary to make it work...
>
> The term "build script" will cause many developers to shudder. The
> usual term is "makefile",

No, not really. By build script I'm talking  about all the processes involved in
building an app.

This is likely to include retrieving a tarball, unarchiving it, obtaining and
applying several patches and then running autoconf and configure before you even
have  makefile to use with make. Being able to run make means you can see the
light at the end of the tunnel.


> but the exact nature of this is determined
> by the make utility one uses. I use DMAKE 4.0 for OS/2, and when I get
> around to building GNAT that will be the maker I use, even if I have
> to coerce the makefile a bit.

I suspect you will not get very far trying to use DMAKE for building GNAT.

> Even so, a makefile is not necessarily
> useful to an end-user; but if that end-user fancies himself as a
> programmer it *should* be enough.
>
> Anyhow, watch the OS2PROG echo on Fidonet and see what turns up.

I haven't accessed Fidonet for a long time, and most people don't use it much
these days.
If you have any news can you post it here or on comp.os.os2.programmer.misc?

> I
> might also post an announcement here. The initial d/l site will be
> Pete Norloff's BBS, later Hobbes and Leo.

I'm hoping to build up unixos2.org as the major file repository for apps which
are normally ported from a Unix environment. I'd like to get it on there if/when
you manage to build it. Hope that's OK...



>
> Regards
>
> Dave
>
> [Remove spamtraps to reply by e-mail]

--
John

Re: ADA for OS/2

[Stefan Skoglund]

John Poltorak wrote:
> compilers. If you use OS/2, the same task is going to take several weeks
> or months. I don't know anyone who has been successful building OS/2

I built gcc2.7.x and 2.8.x in about 5 hours wall 
clock time on a Sun 10/51.

A good PC from the late 90s should do it in less time.

And yes i had the the make invocations in my head at that time.

And no i don't have access to a PC with OS/2 on !!
Send me one and i could take a look on gcc/gnat...

Re: ADA for OS/2

[Pascal Obry]

Stefan Skoglund <stetson@ebox.tninet.se> writes:

> John Poltorak wrote:
> > compilers. If you use OS/2, the same task is going to take several weeks
> > or months. I don't know anyone who has been successful building OS/2
> 
> I built gcc2.7.x and 2.8.x in about 5 hours wall 
> clock time on a Sun 10/51.

The problem is not the speed of the machine but under OS/2 and Windows you
have to fight the fact that all scripts and makefile are UNIX oriented.

And this is really time consumming.

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: ADA for OS/2

[Dave Parsons]

On Fri, 6 Jul 2001 15:41:58, Ted Dennison<dennison@telepath.com> wrote:

> In article <5ee5b646.0107051341.2a0d4b42@posting.google.com>, Robert Dewar
> says...
> >Most people will not be able to install GNAT from sources, since it
> >does indeed assume GCC expertise. It is definitely true that ACT is
> >not building public binaries for most platforms these days (our
> >current intention is to build binaries for GNU/Linux/x86 and for NT).
> >We expect that other public binaries wlil be built, distributed
> >and mirrored, by those who do know how, as happens for other GNU software.
> 
> Currently the situation is a bit warped because ACT essentially controls the
> Gnat baseline. Of course ACT doesn't *have* to do anything. But on the other
> hand, folks have been trained to expect a lot of from GNU software maintainers.
> 
> I think that once Gnat is in the GCC baseline (RSN, right?), its perfectly
> reasonable to expect the community to build its own binaries for *all*
> platforms, as well as to coordinate releases, etc. If ACT feels its in their
> best interests to contribute to that effort, then great. But they are a
> *company* and its about time we quit expecting them to do tons of stuff for us
> for free, just because we'd like it.
> 

True, but since the OS/2 code is still in the baseline presumably it 
is tested and the results of the tests would include an OS/2 binary
which would in turn have to be tested.
If that is true, why not release it, or is the OS/2 code not tested
anymore?
If it is not tested, what does that mean for the quality of any private
builds?

As an aside, it seems that my other preferred OS, OpenVMS, is suffering
the same fate.
All that I could find on ftp://cs.nyu.edu was 3.11p and 3.12p.

BTW, do they just mirror ACT or do they produce their own binaries?

-- 
Dave

Re: ADA for OS/2

[John Poltorak]

Dave Parsons wrote:

> On Fri, 6 Jul 2001 15:41:58, Ted Dennison<dennison@telepath.com> wrote:
>
> > I think that once Gnat is in the GCC baseline (RSN, right?), its perfectly
> > reasonable to expect the community to build its own binaries for *all*
> > platforms, as well as to coordinate releases, etc. If ACT feels its in their
> > best interests to contribute to that effort, then great. But they are a
> > *company* and its about time we quit expecting them to do tons of stuff for us
> > for free, just because we'd like it.
> >
>
> True, but since the OS/2 code is still in the baseline presumably it
> is tested and the results of the tests would include an OS/2 binary
> which would in turn have to be tested.
> If that is true, why not release it, or is the OS/2 code not tested
> anymore?
> If it is not tested, what does that mean for the quality of any private
> builds?

This sounds like a moot point since no one apart, from the GNAT developers, appears
to be able to build an OS/2 version...

--
John




>
> --
> Dave

Re: ADA for OS/2

[Robert Dewar]

John Poltorak <jp@eyup.org> wrote in message news:<3B45DEAF.6BAD19D@eyup.org>...
> There is an immediate problem when attempting to follow an instruction like:-
> 
>   -- Apply patches (gcc-281.dif) from the src directory
> 
> ... does this simply mean using the source straight from GNU, ie. :-
> 
> ftp://ftp.gnu.org/pub/gnu/gcc/gcc-2.8.1.tar.gz
> 
> 
> or do I need to find and apply some EMX patches first to incorporate OS/2
> enhancements?
> 
> And if so, which patches?
> 
> Any hints/tips, much appreciated...


Once again, I strongly suggest that you go through the process of
bootstrapping the OS/2 EMX version of GNU C, and don't even think
about porting GNAT till you have completed that excercise successfully.
If you have not already, I would recommend reading the gcc manual
cover to cover.

Re: ADA for OS/2

[Robert Dewar]

Pascal Obry <p.obry@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message news:<u8zi1m89b.fsf@wanadoo.fr>...

> The problem is not the speed of the machine but under OS/2 and Windows you
> have to fight the fact that all scripts and makefile are UNIX oriented.
> 
> And this is really time consumming.
> 

Pascal is talking about Windows, which he is certainly familiar with.
What he says really does not apply to OS/2 (I don't believe Pascal
has ever done the GNAT build in OS/2 as far as I know). In fact the
build on OS/2 is fairly straightforward for anyone familiar with
OS/2, EMX, and GCC. Certainly *nothing* like the huge effort required
to build under Windows (which consumes a huge amount of ACT's time :-)

I'm not a particularly useful detailed source of knowledge on how to
build the OS/2 release from sources at this stage. I have a very
specialized set of makefiles setup on my personal machine which are
very specifically tuned for the way I do development.

Re: ADA for OS/2

[Robert Dewar]

dwparsons@t-online.de (Dave Parsons) wrote in message news:<Ej0w7lFo08Zw-pn2-uCtRxTNVD6K6@jupiter.dwparsons.dialin.t-online.de>...
> True, but since the OS/2 code is still in the baseline presumably it 
> is tested and the results of the tests would include an OS/2 binary
> which would in turn have to be tested.
> If that is true, why not release it, or is the OS/2 code not tested
> anymore?

ACT no longer supports the OS/2 version of GNAT, since there was
insufficient commercial demand (we had one customer, who is in the
process of switching to windows).

> If it is not tested, what does that mean for the quality of any 
> private builds?

Probably they should be in fairly reasonable shape, since I still
build on OS/2 for development purposes, though we don't do any
formal testing of the OS/2 version at this stage.


> As an aside, it seems that my other preferred OS, OpenVMS, is 
> suffering the same fate.

The OpenVMS version of GNAT Professional is fully supported, and we
have a number of supported customers for this platform. We are not
planning on releasing public binaries, since this is no longer a
platform that is of interest for student use.

> All that I could find on ftp://cs.nyu.edu was 3.11p and 3.12p. 
> BTW, do they just mirror ACT or do they produce their own binaries?

cs.nyu.edu has binaries of the public versions, some are built by ACT,
others are built by other volunteers.

Re: ADA for OS/2

[Pascal Obry]

dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar) writes:

> Pascal Obry <p.obry@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message news:<u8zi1m89b.fsf@wanadoo.fr>...
> 
> > The problem is not the speed of the machine but under OS/2 and Windows you
> > have to fight the fact that all scripts and makefile are UNIX oriented.
> > 
> > And this is really time consumming.
> > 
> 
> Pascal is talking about Windows, which he is certainly familiar with.
> What he says really does not apply to OS/2 (I don't believe Pascal
> has ever done the GNAT build in OS/2 as far as I know). 

Right :)

> In fact the
> build on OS/2 is fairly straightforward for anyone familiar with
> OS/2, EMX, and GCC. 

Ok, so I withdraw my comments.

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: Ada for OS/2

[Dave Parsons]

On Sat, 7 Jul 2001 13:29:56, John Poltorak <jp@eyup.org> wrote:

> Dave Parsons wrote:
> 
> > True, but since the OS/2 code is still in the baseline presumably it
> > is tested and the results of the tests would include an OS/2 binary
> > which would in turn have to be tested.
> > If that is true, why not release it, or is the OS/2 code not tested
> > anymore?
> > If it is not tested, what does that mean for the quality of any private
> > builds?
> 
> This sounds like a moot point since no one apart, from the GNAT developers, appears
> to be able to build an OS/2 version...
> 

We will have to wait and see...

BTW, thanks for getting me off the list whilst I was away. I resubscribed
yesterday.
Did you find out why it failed to remove me although it said that it had?

-- 
Dave

Re: Ada for OS/2

[Dave Parsons]

On Sat, 7 Jul 2001 21:26:19, dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar) wrote:

> dwparsons@t-online.de (Dave Parsons) wrote in message news:<Ej0w7lFo08Zw-pn2-uCtRxTNVD6K6@jupiter.dwparsons.dialin.t-online.de>...
>
> > True, but since the OS/2 code is still in the baseline presumably it 
> > is tested and the results of the tests would include an OS/2 binary
> > which would in turn have to be tested.
> > If that is true, why not release it, or is the OS/2 code not tested
> > anymore?
> 
> ACT no longer supports the OS/2 version of GNAT, since there was
> insufficient commercial demand (we had one customer, who is in the
> process of switching to windows).
> 
> > If it is not tested, what does that mean for the quality of any 
> > private builds?
> 
> Probably they should be in fairly reasonable shape, since I still
> build on OS/2 for development purposes, though we don't do any
> formal testing of the OS/2 version at this stage.
> 

Thank you for your reply and sorry I took so long to reply.

Anyway in the meantime I have built GNAT 3.13p and GCC on OS/2
and have a couple of questions.

Firstly, when building an archive of the resultant files to
form a possible distribution I noticed that gnatelim and
gnatstub are missing from 3.13 although they were in the 3.12
archive. Are these no longer required or are they in another
source archive? 

The second point concerns testing. Is there an accepted standard
test suite anywhere that I can download?
I've had a look around ACT and AdaPower, but could not find
anything.

Thanks,
Dave

Re: Ada for OS/2

[Windows.Only.Vendors]

On Sun, 29 Jul 2001 10:45:04, dwparsons@t-online.de (Dave Parsons) 
wrote:

> Anyway in the meantime I have built GNAT 3.13p and GCC on OS/2
> 

Wonderful! Would you be so kind as to post an the details of how you 
do this. I would like to learn how and archive them as well. That way 
we are never stuck in this position again. And, of course, when and 
where may we download a copy?

A sincere thank you

Tim
-- 
tjeric_k AT telusplanet_net
remove any underscores to get the proper address

Re: ADA for OS/2

[Robert Dewar]

tmoran@acm.org wrote in message news:<XLo07.148916$%i7.100501642@news1.rdc1.sfba.home.com>...
> Robert Dewar used to say he preferred OS/2 and always made sure Gnat
> ran there.  When did he stop?


Don't make presumptions please Ted! No one said Robert Dewar had
stopped using OS/2. I still run OS/2, and I still run GNAT on it.
However, my build is not releasable, it is tied into my entire
environment, and since we have abandoned the OS/2 product, we are
no longer making releasable builds on this operating system (and
that includes both the GNAT Professional version and the public
version).

I do welcome the recently announced contribution of a 3.13p build, and
we hope that similar efforts will produce public binaries on various
targets. We will be happy to assist in making these contributed ports
available on the NYU site.

Robert Dewar

(who one of these days will probably bite the bullet and switch to
Linux -- I am beginning to miss some of the nice GNAT tools that are
not available on OS/2 -- anyone know of an implementation of EPM on
Linux :-)

Re: Ada for OS/2

[Dave Parsons]

On Sun, 29 Jul 2001 17:49:47, Windows.Only.Vendors@Suck.Com wrote:

> On Sun, 29 Jul 2001 10:45:04, dwparsons@t-online.de (Dave Parsons) 
> wrote:
> 
> > Anyway in the meantime I have built GNAT 3.13p and GCC on OS/2
> > 
> 
> Wonderful! Would you be so kind as to post an the details of how you 
> do this. I would like to learn how and archive them as well. That way 
> we are never stuck in this position again. And, of course, when and 
> where may we download a copy?
> 

Yes, of course, but first I must confirm that it works correctly,
then I will make it available.

In essence, I only followed the instructions in README.BUILD, plus
a few minor tweaks to the makefiles.

Dave

Re: ADA for OS/2

[Ted Dennison]

In article <5ee5b646.0107291920.7d2e3b92@posting.google.com>, Robert Dewar
says...
>
>tmoran@acm.org wrote in message news:<XLo07.148916$%i7.100501642@news1.rdc1.sfba.home.com>...
>> Robert Dewar used to say he preferred OS/2 and always made sure Gnat
>> ran there.  When did he stop?
>
>
>Don't make presumptions please Ted! No one said Robert Dewar had

Just a minor nit here, but I don't believe the "t" in "tmoran" stands for "Ted".
At least, one would think I would remember it if it did. :-)

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

Re: ADA for OS/2

[tmoran]

>>>tmoran@acm.org wrote in message news:<XLo07.148916$%i7.100501642@news1.rdc1.sfba.home.com>...
>>Don't make presumptions please Ted! No one said Robert Dewar had
>Just a minor nit here, but I don't believe the "t" in "tmoran" stands for "Ted".
>At least, one would think I would remember it if it did. :-)
  tmoran => Tom Moran.  I think Roger Dewar knows this but just forgot.

Re: Ada for OS/2

[Robert Dewar]

dwparsons@t-online.de (Dave Parsons) wrote in message news:<Ej0w7lFo08Zw-pn2-7JOd7XW2RPdN@jupiter.dwparsons.dialin.t-online.de>...
> In essence, I only followed the instructions in README.BUILD, plus
> a few minor tweaks to the makefiles.

In our experience, building GNAT is quite straightforward if 

a) you have reasonable experience with building gcc, and know the
basic structure of the makefiles (and are fully familiar with make),
i.e. just basic gcc build knowledge

b) you follow the instructions. It is amazing how often people get
into trouble because they think they know better than the instructions :-)

Re: Ada for OS/2

[Windows.Only.Vendors]

On Sun, 5 Aug 2001 16:10:47, dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar) wrote:

> dwparsons@t-online.de (Dave Parsons) wrote in message news:<Ej0w7lFo08Zw-pn2-7JOd7XW2RPdN@jupiter.dwparsons.dialin.t-online.de>...
> > In essence, I only followed the instructions in README.BUILD, plus
> > a few minor tweaks to the makefiles.

The tweaks to the makefiles are needed information. When you are ready
to release let me know as I want to try the build myself and would 
like to get some help for the process.


> 
> In our experience, building GNAT is quite straightforward if 
> 
> a) you have reasonable experience with building gcc, and know the
> basic structure of the makefiles (and are fully familiar with make),
> i.e. just basic gcc build knowledge

Well, here is the crux of the problem: I do not have the requisite 
experience which is why I am interested in getting the method down and
archiving it. 


> 
> b) you follow the instructions. It is amazing how often people get
> into trouble because they think they know better than the instructions :-)

I am able, and willing, to follow instructions. But when those 
instructions rely on assumed knowledge they are of little use to the 
beginner. See above.

-- 
tjeric_k AT telusplanet_net
remove any underscores to get the proper address

Re: Ada for OS/2

[Dave Parsons]

On Sun, 5 Aug 2001 16:10:47, dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar) wrote:

> dwparsons@t-online.de (Dave Parsons) wrote in message news:<Ej0w7lFo08Zw-pn2-7JOd7XW2RPdN@jupiter.dwparsons.dialin.t-online.de>...
> > In essence, I only followed the instructions in README.BUILD, plus
> > a few minor tweaks to the makefiles.
> 
> In our experience, building GNAT is quite straightforward if 
> 
> a) you have reasonable experience with building gcc, and know the
> basic structure of the makefiles (and are fully familiar with make),
> i.e. just basic gcc build knowledge
> 
> b) you follow the instructions. It is amazing how often people get
> into trouble because they think they know better than the instructions :-)

I am still in the testing phase at the moment but, thinking positive and
looking to the future, will ACT continue to update the sources, makefiles
etc so that private OS/2 builds will still be possible?

I don't like the idea of multiple source distributions floating around and
also I don't have the time to be the OS/2 maintainer, although I am happy to
build them now and then so long as the time required does not escalate.

Dave.

Re: Ada for OS/2

[Robert Dewar]

Windows.Only.Vendors@Suck.Com wrote in message news:<ywLYhRw4zi4W-pn2-tizXKkkoPsRl@aigh168by26ya.ab.hsia.telus.net>...
> I am able, and willing, to follow instructions. But when those 
> instructions rely on assumed knowledge they are of little use to the 
> beginner. See above.

Indeed, we do not expect beginners to be able to necessarily succeed
in building GNAT from sources, since this is not a trivial task, but
good for you if you succeeded anyway!

Re: Ada for OS/2

[Robert Dewar]

dwparsons@t-online.de (Dave Parsons) wrote in message news:<Ej0w7lFo08Zw-pn2-KWi1r5BLeZzH@jupiter.dwparsons.dialin.t-online.de>...
> I am still in the testing phase at the moment but, thinking positive 
> and looking to the future, will ACT continue to update the sources,
> makefiles etc so that private OS/2 builds will still be possible?

ACT no longer supports GNAT on OS/2, it is not one of our officially
supported platforms, so the source releases from ACT will probably
not update any OS/2 related information.

On the other hand, one would hope that someone will provide and
maintain the GCC 3.x GNAT sources for OS/2 at the gcc site. We are
still hoping to get this set of sources available soon.

Re: Ada for OS/2

[Dave Parsons]

On Tue, 7 Aug 2001 22:45:37, dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar) wrote:

> ACT no longer supports GNAT on OS/2, it is not one of our officially
> supported platforms, so the source releases from ACT will probably
> not update any OS/2 related information.

Ok, fair enough. It is a business for ACT after all.
It is a pity though, that we will not be able to incorporate OS/2
changes into the common code base.

> On the other hand, one would hope that someone will provide and
> maintain the GCC 3.x GNAT sources for OS/2 at the gcc site. We are
> still hoping to get this set of sources available soon.

I will take a look when they are released and see if I can build an
OS/2 version, but I hope that someone else with more spare time will
be able to carry on in the future.

Dave

Re: Ada for OS/2

[Robert Dewar]

dwparsons@t-online.de (Dave Parsons) wrote in message news:<Ej0w7lFo08Zw-pn2-VwdQdshHPfwc@jupiter.dwparsons.dialin.t-online.de>...
> Ok, fair enough. It is a business for ACT after all.
> It is a pity though, that we will not be able to incorporate OS/2
> changes into the common code base.

Oh, but you will! That's the point of having the sources at gnu.org,
contributions of this kind will be welcome. After all if 100% of the
changes are being done by ACT, there is no point in having the sources
at gnu.org, the whole point of putting them there is to take advantage
of volunteer efforts, since, as we see in the OS/2 case, ACT can't
manage to handle all possible ports, but we will be happy to
incorporate any OS/2 contributions.

Re: Ada for OS/2

[Dave Parsons]

On Thu, 9 Aug 2001 18:23:30, dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar) wrote:
 
> Oh, but you will! That's the point of having the sources at gnu.org,
> contributions of this kind will be welcome. After all if 100% of the
> changes are being done by ACT, there is no point in having the sources
> at gnu.org, the whole point of putting them there is to take advantage
> of volunteer efforts, since, as we see in the OS/2 case, ACT can't
> manage to handle all possible ports, but we will be happy to
> incorporate any OS/2 contributions.

Ok, thanks for clearing that up. I was a bit uncertain about the
relationship between ACT and gnu.org.

Re: Ada for OS/2

[Robert Dewar]

dwparsons@t-online.de (Dave Parsons) wrote in message news:<Ej0w7lFo08Zw-pn2-qk9Oyf4HDXvB@jupiter.dwparsons.dialin.t-online.de>...

> Ok, thanks for clearing that up. I was a bit uncertain about the
> relationship between ACT and gnu.org.

Ada Core Technologies will provide the initial sources, and will likely
contribute many (but hopefully not all :-) of the continued improvements.