* GNAT 3.10p and GCC 2.7.2.3 @ 1998-02-07 0:00 Robert B. Love 1998-02-07 0:00 ` Jean-Francois Vilarem 1998-02-08 0:00 ` Michael Appleby 0 siblings, 2 replies; 6+ messages in thread From: Robert B. Love @ 1998-02-07 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) I've just upgraded my Linux to RedHat 5 and seem to have lost my ability to compile. I believe that my gcc got upgraded to 2.7.2.3. What gcc was gnat-3.10p built with? Is there a compatibility problem with it and the newer gcc? All assistance appreciated. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Bob Love MIME & NeXT Mail OK rlove@neosoft.com PGP key available ---------------------------------------------------------------- ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: GNAT 3.10p and GCC 2.7.2.3 1998-02-07 0:00 GNAT 3.10p and GCC 2.7.2.3 Robert B. Love @ 1998-02-07 0:00 ` Jean-Francois Vilarem 1998-02-10 0:00 ` Robert B. Love 1998-02-08 0:00 ` Michael Appleby 1 sibling, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: Jean-Francois Vilarem @ 1998-02-07 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) rlove@antispam.neosoft.com (Robert B. Love ) writes: > I've just upgraded my Linux to RedHat 5 and seem to have lost my > ability to compile. I believe that my gcc got upgraded to 2.7.2.3. > What gcc was gnat-3.10p built with? Is there a compatibility problem > with it and the newer gcc? Binaries from gnat-3.10p.....tar.gz are built using gcc-2.7.2.1 and libc.so.5 This installation overwrite /usr/bin/gcc and does not work. I have found a dirty trick : use the package gnat-3.10 from debian/hamm/devel This package is compiled with glibc2.0, gcc-2.7.2.3 and does not divert gcc. 1. get the package debian/hamm/binary-i386/devel/gnat_3.10p-2.deb 2. get the debian binary dpkg-deb or compile it from source : debian/bo/source/base/dpkg_1.4.0.8.tar.gz 2.1 cd /tmp ; tar xvfz dpkg_1.4.0.8.tar.gz 2.2 cd dpkg-1.4.0.8 ; ./configure 2.3 cd lib ; make 2.4 cd ../dpkg-deb ; make 2.5 Use dpkg-deb in step 4 3. Using my redhat-5.0, gcc-lib is /usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-redhat-linux/2.7.2.3 control this path with gcc -v then link ln -s /usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-redhat-linux /usr/lib/gcc-lib/i486-linux 4. logged as root : dpkg-deb -x gnat_3.10p-2.deb / which extracts binaries from gnat_3.10p-2.deb in / (dpkg-deb --help) 5. ldconfig ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: GNAT 3.10p and GCC 2.7.2.3 1998-02-07 0:00 ` Jean-Francois Vilarem @ 1998-02-10 0:00 ` Robert B. Love 0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread From: Robert B. Love @ 1998-02-10 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In <87ra5f1pm6.fsf@darkstar.maison> Jean-Francois Vilarem wrote: > rlove@antispam.neosoft.com (Robert B. Love ) writes: > > > I've just upgraded my Linux to RedHat 5 and seem to have lost my > > ability to compile. I believe that my gcc got upgraded to 2.7.2.3. > > What gcc was gnat-3.10p built with? Is there a compatibility problem > > with it and the newer gcc? > Binaries from gnat-3.10p.....tar.gz are built using gcc-2.7.2.1 and libc.so.5 > This installation overwrite /usr/bin/gcc and does not work. > > I have found a dirty trick : use the package gnat-3.10 from debian/hamm/devel > This package is compiled with glibc2.0, gcc-2.7.2.3 and does not divert gcc. [ procedure deleted ] I followed it and sure enough I can now compile. However, the program core dumps when I try to execute it. Will ACT build GNAT 3.10p with gcc 2.7.2.3? If I get the source, how difficult is it to do yourself? ---------------------------------------------------------------- Bob Love MIME & NeXT Mail OK rlove@neosoft.com PGP key available ---------------------------------------------------------------- ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: GNAT 3.10p and GCC 2.7.2.3 1998-02-07 0:00 GNAT 3.10p and GCC 2.7.2.3 Robert B. Love 1998-02-07 0:00 ` Jean-Francois Vilarem @ 1998-02-08 0:00 ` Michael Appleby 1998-02-08 0:00 ` bklungle 1998-02-09 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1 sibling, 2 replies; 6+ messages in thread From: Michael Appleby @ 1998-02-08 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Robert B. Love wrote: > > I've just upgraded my Linux to RedHat 5 and seem to have lost my > ability to compile. I believe that my gcc got upgraded to 2.7.2.3. > What gcc was gnat-3.10p built with? Is there a compatibility problem > with it and the newer gcc? > > All assistance appreciated. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > Bob Love MIME & NeXT Mail OK > rlove@neosoft.com PGP key available > ---------------------------------------------------------------- Let me add to this thought, ... Overloading of basic arithmetic operators (+,-,>,<,mod,rem ...) which worked in GNAT Ada 3.07 and 3.09 doesn't work in 3.10. The compiler complained that it couldn't resolve ambiguous references for these operators between our file and 'System' even though the low level math operations were fully resolved within the boundaries of the file being compiled. Unfortunately, we have to overload the operators because of the peculiarities of the target machine (custom-built, embedded application). It's also a shame because v3.10's development environment looks really slick. Otherwise, well done GNAT. -=Michael Appleby=- ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: GNAT 3.10p and GCC 2.7.2.3 1998-02-08 0:00 ` Michael Appleby @ 1998-02-08 0:00 ` bklungle 1998-02-09 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1 sibling, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread From: bklungle @ 1998-02-08 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Mike, Maybe I misunderstood your reference to standard math function overloads not working in gnat-3.10. The following was hacked quickly on 3.10 on NT. Compiled and executed fine. Note the overload of "+" in Mtest from M. From your comment, it sounds more like the data types of the new defining functions were somehow mapping directly to the System defined ones, perhaps from using a subtype declaration instead of a type. Just a guess on my part. Anyway, as I said, I may have misunderstood your statement. cheers...bob > Let me add to this thought, ... > > Overloading of basic arithmetic operators (+,-,>,<,mod,rem ...) which > worked in GNAT Ada 3.07 and 3.09 doesn't work in 3.10. The compiler > complained that it couldn't resolve ambiguous references for these > operators between our file and 'System' even though the low level math > operations were fully resolved within the boundaries of the file being > compiled. Unfortunately, we have to overload the operators because of > the peculiarities of the target machine (custom-built, embedded > application). It's also a shame because v3.10's development environment > looks really slick. > > Otherwise, well done GNAT. > > -=Michael Appleby=- > package M is type int is new integer; type flt is new long_float; function "+"(a, b : int) return int; function "+"(a, b : flt) return flt; end M; package body M is function "+"(a, b : int) return int is begin return int(integer(a) + integer(b)); end "+"; function "+"(a, b : flt) return flt is begin return flt(long_float(a) + long_float(b)); end "+"; end M; with M; with Text_IO; procedure Mtest is function "+"(a, b : M.int) return M.int renames M."+"; a, b, c : M.int; begin a := 3; b := 4; c := a + b; Text_IO.put_line( "The value of" & integer'image(integer(a)) & " +" & integer'image(integer(b)) & " =" & integer'image(integer(c)) ); end Mtest; ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: GNAT 3.10p and GCC 2.7.2.3 1998-02-08 0:00 ` Michael Appleby 1998-02-08 0:00 ` bklungle @ 1998-02-09 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1 sibling, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 1998-02-09 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) <<Let me add to this thought, ... Overloading of basic arithmetic operators (+,-,>,<,mod,rem ...) which worked in GNAT Ada 3.07 and 3.09 doesn't work in 3.10. The compiler complained that it couldn't resolve ambiguous references for these operators between our file and 'System' even though the low level math operations were fully resolved within the boundaries of the file being compiled. Unfortunately, we have to overload the operators because of the peculiarities of the target machine (custom-built, embedded application). It's also a shame because v3.10's development environment looks really slick. Otherwise, well done GNAT. >> If you think you have found a bug, then you should send it to report@gnat.com. Note however that the fact that something works in 3.07 and 3.09 and does not work in 3.10 does not necessarily mean that it is 3.10 that was broken. A number of bugs were fixed in 3.10 in this area, and the result is that some illegal programs that were incorrectly accepted by 3.09 are now correctly rejected by 3.10. We don't know that your example is a case in point, but we also don't know that it isn't, given that you did not tell us what your example was. Certainly overloading of basic operators generally works fine (we have probably hundreds of such examples in our regression suite). It is always possible that you have found a specific case where there is a bug, but, especially when you send in the report to report@gnat.com, it is essential to provide the exact source and not just a vague over-generalized statement! Robert Dewar Ada Core Technologies ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~1998-02-10 0:00 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 1998-02-07 0:00 GNAT 3.10p and GCC 2.7.2.3 Robert B. Love 1998-02-07 0:00 ` Jean-Francois Vilarem 1998-02-10 0:00 ` Robert B. Love 1998-02-08 0:00 ` Michael Appleby 1998-02-08 0:00 ` bklungle 1998-02-09 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox