Re: New tool "gprexec", basically "make with project file"

[Shark8 <onewingedshark@gmail.com>]

On Tuesday, January 15, 2019 at 9:41:04 AM UTC-7, Shark8 wrote:
> 
> Package PROJECT_NAME

Sorry, I accidentally submitted the form while composing my example... which is here:

Package PROJECT_NAME is

   Type Archetectures is ( x86, x86_64, ARM, SPARC, MIPS_V );
   Type Node_Type is (Storage, Processing);
   Type Partition_Type is (Active, Passive);
   Type Compilation_Parameters is record
     CPUs    : Natural := 0;	-- Use as many cores as available.
	 Symbols : Boolean := True;	-- Don't strip symbols.
	 Target  : Archetectures;
	 --...
   end record;
   
   Type Partition( Params : Compilation_Parameters; Style : Partition_Type ) is record
     null; --... Other DSA paramters.
   end record;
   
   Type Node( Style : Node_type ) is record
     Archetecture : Archetectures;
     case Style is
	   when Storage =>    null; --... 
	   when Processing => null; --...
	 end case;
   end record;
   
   Generic
     Params : Compilation_Parameters;
   Procedure Compile;
   
   --- CONCEPTUAL GENERIC PACKAGE
   Generic
     Partitions : Array (Positive range <>) of not null access Partition;
   Package Compiler is
     Procedure Execute;
   End Compiler;
   
   --- CONCEPTUAL BODY FOR COMPILER.
   Package Body Compiler is
     Procedure Execute is
	 Begin
	   For P of Partitions loop
	     declare
		   Procedure Make is new Compile( P.Params );
		 begin
		   Make;
		 end;
	   End loop;
	 End Execute;
   End Compiler;
   
   
End PROJECT_NAME;

Now, obviously there would have to be standardization -- and it would probably work better if "Archetectures" were a parameter to PROJECT_NAME -- because if all config-packages were generic we could "nest" dependencies:

Generic
  Type STANDARD_PARAM is limited private; -- "Configuration standard param"
  with Package P1 is new Project_1( STANDARD_PARAM );
  with Package P2 is new Project_2( STANDARD_PARAM );
  -- P3 depends on P1&2
  with Package P3 is new Project_3( STANDARD_PARAM, P1, P2 );
Package Project_4 is
 -- ... STANDARD STRUCTURE.
End Project_4;

Now, all of that is operating with the idea of using Ada as a config-language, which is doable, but perhaps a bit ugly... It might be a bit better to sit down, think about configurations (esp. in the presence of DSA) and develop an Ada-like language for that. (Perhaps in conjunction with a new Ada IR similar to DIANA, such that this configuration-description "compiles down to" the proper generic-nodes which can then be interpreted by the compiler as the configuration[s] to use; or processed by tools to inter-operate with current tools [ie IR → (GPR_File, Gnatdist_Configuration_File) for GNAT].)