Green Hills Ada library question

Green Hills Ada library question

[dennison]

I'm trying to do an initial build of an Ada system we have here using the
Green Hills AdaMulti environment on WindowsNT. Our system currently has 371
source files scattered over 42 different directories.

Green Hills tech support claims their system has no automatic build process,
and I will have to go into their IDE and *manually* add all 371 files to a
build file.  That file will also have to be *manually* maintained. (Can you
say "error prone"?). They do have an "adareg" command, but no "compile
obsolete adareg'ed units" command. They have the ability to compile obsolete
units that are listed in the build file, but no "put these units in the build
file" command.

I have more than a little trouble believing all this, as it would be the only
Ada compiler I have ever worked with (out of 8) that lacks some way to
automaticaly build and maintain a system. Can someone else who has worked with
Green Hills tell me how this is done?

--
T.E.D.

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp   Create Your Own Free Member Forum

Re: Green Hills Ada library question

[Tucker Taft]

dennison@telepath.com wrote:

: I'm trying to do an initial build of an Ada system we have here using the
: Green Hills AdaMulti environment on WindowsNT. Our system currently has 371
: source files scattered over 42 different directories.

: Green Hills tech support claims their system has no automatic build process,
: and I will have to go into their IDE and *manually* add all 371 files to a
: build file.  That file will also have to be *manually* maintained. (Can you
: say "error prone"?). 

Is the feature that is missing a directory-oriented build,
as opposed to a file-oriented build?  It is a little unclear
what you mean by "manual" add/maintain.  Presumably you will
"manually" need to identify the directories of interest in any system.

: ...
: T.E.D.

--
-Tucker Taft   stt@inmet.com   http://www.inmet.com/~stt/
Intermetrics, Inc.  Burlington, MA  USA

Re: Green Hills Ada library question

[dennison]

In article <EzABB4.9Bt.0.-s@inmet.camb.inmet.com>,
  stt@houdini.camb.inmet.com (Tucker Taft) wrote:
> dennison@telepath.com wrote:
>
> : Green Hills tech support claims their system has no automatic build process,
> : and I will have to go into their IDE and *manually* add all 371 files to a
> : build file.  That file will also have to be *manually* maintained. (Can you
> : say "error prone"?).
>
> Is the feature that is missing a directory-oriented build,
> as opposed to a file-oriented build?  It is a little unclear
> what you mean by "manual" add/maintain.  Presumably you will
> "manually" need to identify the directories of interest in any system.

Yes, you could call it that. I have no problem listing directories. I just
don't want to have to list all 371 files!

Every other compiler system I have worked with had one command, or more
typically a combination of two, that could be used to compile an entire
system from scratch without having to type in every unit or source file. For
Aonix it would be "adareg -all" followed by "adamake". For gnat I believe one
"gnatmake" does the trick (assuming everything is named properly).

On large projects maintaining an Ada library by manual processes is not
acceptable. With an error here and there it quickly becomes a mess. An
automatic system build process, particularly something that can be run batch,
is required.

With the tools that I have with AdaMulti, I can't do it. It looks like I have
to do one of two things:

o Use "adareg -all" to register all files with the library. Then do an
"adaopts -l -s" to list every file it found. Then invoke the compiler once on
*each* source file listed.

o Start up the GUI and create a new "build file". Then manually add each and
every file with the mouse. Right now for us that amounts to 371 source files
in 42 directories (but this is just our prototype!). Then invoke the AdaMulti
builder.

Neither activity sounds like much fun to do once, let alone once a day. If
anyone out there disagrees, contact me. We may just have an opening for you.
Of course you'd have to sign a carpel-tunnel waiver. :-)

Our only recourse seems to be to use the TCL that came with the AdaMulti to
write a script to perform the manually intensive part for us. I'm not afraid
to do that,  just shocked that I have to. I must have missed something.

--
T.E.D.

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp   Create Your Own Free Member Forum

Re: Green Hills Ada library question

[Victor Giddings]

In article <6tlrfh$udi$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, dennison@telepath.com wrote:

> In article <EzABB4.9Bt.0.-s@inmet.camb.inmet.com>,
>   stt@houdini.camb.inmet.com (Tucker Taft) wrote:
> > dennison@telepath.com wrote:
> >
> > : Green Hills tech support claims their system has no automatic build
process,
> > : and I will have to go into their IDE and *manually* add all 371 files to a
> > : build file.  That file will also have to be *manually* maintained.
(Can you
> > : say "error prone"?).
> >
> > Is the feature that is missing a directory-oriented build,
> > as opposed to a file-oriented build?  It is a little unclear
> > what you mean by "manual" add/maintain.  Presumably you will
> > "manually" need to identify the directories of interest in any system.
> 
> Yes, you could call it that. I have no problem listing directories. I just
> don't want to have to list all 371 files!
> 
> Every other compiler system I have worked with had one command, or more
> typically a combination of two, that could be used to compile an entire
> system from scratch without having to type in every unit or source file. For
> Aonix it would be "adareg -all" followed by "adamake". For gnat I believe one
> "gnatmake" does the trick (assuming everything is named properly).
> 
> On large projects maintaining an Ada library by manual processes is not
> acceptable. With an error here and there it quickly becomes a mess. An
> automatic system build process, particularly something that can be run batch,
> is required.
> 
> With the tools that I have with AdaMulti, I can't do it. It looks like I have
> to do one of two things:
> 
> o Use "adareg -all" to register all files with the library. Then do an
> "adaopts -l -s" to list every file it found. Then invoke the compiler once on
> *each* source file listed.
> 
> o Start up the GUI and create a new "build file". Then manually add each and
> every file with the mouse. Right now for us that amounts to 371 source files
> in 42 directories (but this is just our prototype!). Then invoke the AdaMulti
> builder.

BTW, the GUI "add" field accepts wild cards.
> 
> Neither activity sounds like much fun to do once, let alone once a day. If
> anyone out there disagrees, contact me. We may just have an opening for you.
> Of course you'd have to sign a carpel-tunnel waiver. :-)
> 
> Our only recourse seems to be to use the TCL that came with the AdaMulti to
> write a script to perform the manually intensive part for us. I'm not afraid
> to do that,  just shocked that I have to. I must have missed something.
> 
> --
> T.E.D.
> 
> -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
> http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp   Create Your Own Free Member Forum

We have found it relatively easy to build the "build file" from a shell
script (actually within a make file). Then it is a matter of using the
"build" command or the GUI to make everything. The only trick is to delete
the appropriate build file when its membership should change, or to
maintain it through the GUI. Admittedly this is suboptimal, however it is
relatively obvious when a new file has not been made part of the build,
but is withed by a file that is part of the project. 

For example, here is the ada and default.bld target from one of our Makefiles:

ada: default.bld
        build -ignore

##----------------------------------------------------------------------
default.bld:
        @echo "#!build"   >  default.bld; \
        echo "default:"  >> default.bld; \
        echo "  nobuild" >> default.bld; \
        echo "  :debuglevel=multi" >> default.bld; \
        echo "  :target=$(GHS_TARGET)" >> default.bld; 
        obj_list=`eval 'ls *.ad?'`; \
        for obj in $$obj_list; \
        do \
                echo "$$obj" >> default.bld; \
                echo "      Ada" >> default.bld; \
        done;
        adareg *.ad?

I realize this is not quite you are looking for.

-- 
Victor Giddings               vtg@ois.com
Objective Interface Systems

Re: Green Hills Ada library question

[dewar]

In article <victor.giddings-2909982234390001@remote3.ois.com>,
  victor.giddings@ois.com (Victor Giddings) wrote:

> We have found it relatively easy to build the "build file" from a shell
> script (actually within a make file). Then it is a matter of using the
> "build" command or the GUI to make everything. The only trick is to delete
> the appropriate build file when its membership should change, or to
> maintain it through the GUI. Admittedly this is suboptimal, however it is
> relatively obvious when a new file has not been made part of the build,
> but is withed by a file that is part of the project.

Yes, you certainly can use make files for Ada programs (we actually build
GNAT that way, since we don't want to rely on GNATMAKE for building GNAT
itself). The reason this approach works much less well for Ada than for
C is because computing the dependencies is difficult in Ada, and because
of the use of pragma Inline, the dependencies tend to change more rapidly.

Computing the dependencies really requires a compiler, to determine inlining
dependencies. There are two problems with conventional Ada 83 library systems
with respect to inlining:

1. You have to compile inlined bodies before the client. This means that what
inlining you get depends on the order of compilation, and it may be impossible
to do mutual inlining between two package bodies. The trouble here is that
the effect of getting the ordering wrong (e.g. by not having all the
dependencies accurate in the make file) is not a binder inconsistency, but
rather just inefficient non-inlined code.

2. Since the order of compilation is strict, you need to know the order of
compilation before you can compile, and you need to compile before you can
figure out the exact order of compilation. Make tools that work with
conventional Ada 83 libraries often have to approximate the dependenceies,
and again, if they get the approximation wrong, the penalty may not be
a detected inconsistency, but rather inefficiency due to inline failures.

The nice thing about the source library structure, used by both GNAT and
by Intermetrics (and consequently by Greenhills) is that since there is no
required order of compilation, you are not stuck on either point. The
GNATMAKE utility works by first compiling the main program to determine
its dependencies, and then works its way *down* the dependency tree (i.e.
in exactly the opposite order of compilation required by a traditional
library system). This means that GNATMAKE can accurately compute the
compilation dependencies, including all inlining requirements, as it
goes along with no inefficiencies.

The same approach should definitely be applicable to systems using the
IM front end, since it uses basically the same source based approach as
GNAT.

We have certainly found gnatmake to be an invaluable tool for GNAT, and indeed
in normal usage, it is the ONLY tool used for compilation.

Robert Dewar
Ada Core Technologies

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp   Create Your Own Free Member Forum

Re: Green Hills Ada library question

[dennison]

In article <victor.giddings-2909982234390001@remote3.ois.com>,
  victor.giddings@ois.com (Victor Giddings) wrote:

> We have found it relatively easy to build the "build file" from a shell
> script (actually within a make file). Then it is a matter of using the

Remember, we are using WindowsNT. The DOS shell isn't really designed for this
kind of activity.

What I finaly did do was hobble something together using the improperly
installed TCL implementation that came with Tornado and clearcase's "find"
command. It wasn't easy, pretty, or perfect, but it only had to be done once.
It is now the individual developer's task to maintain the bld files.

--
T.E.D.

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp   Create Your Own Free Member Forum

Re: Green Hills Ada library question

[Paul English]

dennison@telepath.com writes:

> In article <victor.giddings-2909982234390001@remote3.ois.com>,
>   victor.giddings@ois.com (Victor Giddings) wrote:
> 
> > We have found it relatively easy to build the "build file" from a
> > shell script (actually within a make file).
> 
> Remember, we are using WindowsNT. The DOS shell isn't really
> designed for this kind of activity.

I agree, we are using WindowsNT, and avoid using the DOS shell like
the plague.  I suggest you have a look at the GNU-Win32 Project at
http://www.cygnus.com/misc/gnu-win32/.  We are successfully using the
bash shell and GNU make from this project.

Cheers,
Paul.
-- 
                                        ,    , 
                                       ("\''/").___..--''" -._ 
Paul English                           `9_ 9  )   `-.  (     ).`-.__.') 
paul.english@NOSPAM.technologist.com   (_Y_.)'  ._   )   ._  . ``-..-' 
Remove NOSPAM. for email address.     _..`--'_..-_/  /--'_.' .' 
                                    (il).-''  ((i).'  ((!.-' 

Re: Green Hills Ada library question

[bob]

I sympathize with you. We started the same thing about 8 months ago.
The system is now mostly working (with many bugs we worked around because
Green Hills REFUSED to fix them).

The first thing we did was make a directory with symbolic links to the
sources 
(over 1100 Ada packages and C files). This allowed the workers to continue
fixing
their code without moving things around. Then a test generate of some
components
(generate a builder file). Then with vi and emacs, fairly quickly hand
built a complete
filename.bld file, structured as needed. From here on, Multi did its job.
We then 
migrated over time to SCCS control with a build map to a development
directory.

Believe me, most of our users are disgusted with the Green Hills/Multi
system
for Ada (they came from a VERDIX/Rational environment), but there was no
other
available with vxworks targeted to the system we needed. We are seriously
thinking
of contacting ACT and see if there is a better solution there.

If you would like more, no need to air laundry on USER group.

bob
Raytheon Systems
bklungle@ix.netcom.com

dennison@telepath.com wrote in article <6tjgph$661$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> I'm trying to do an initial build of an Ada system we have here using the
> Green Hills AdaMulti environment on WindowsNT. Our system currently has
371
> source files scattered over 42 different directories.
> 
> Green Hills tech support claims their system has no automatic build
process,
> and I will have to go into their IDE and *manually* add all 371 files to
a
> build file.  That file will also have to be *manually* maintained. (Can
you
> say "error prone"?). They do have an "adareg" command, but no "compile
> obsolete adareg'ed units" command. They have the ability to compile
obsolete
> units that are listed in the build file, but no "put these units in the
build
> file" command.
> 
> I have more than a little trouble believing all this, as it would be the
only
> Ada compiler I have ever worked with (out of 8) that lacks some way to
> automaticaly build and maintain a system. Can someone else who has worked
with
> Green Hills tell me how this is done?
> 
> --
> T.E.D.
> 
> -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
> http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp   Create Your Own Free Member Forum
> 

Re: Green Hills Ada library question (Ada on VxWorks)

[Corey Minyard]

"bob" <bklungle@junque.com> writes:
> Believe me, most of our users are disgusted with the Green Hills/Multi
> system
> for Ada (they came from a VERDIX/Rational environment), but there was no
> other
> available with vxworks targeted to the system we needed. We are seriously
> thinking
> of contacting ACT and see if there is a better solution there.
> 
> If you would like more, no need to air laundry on USER group.
> 

I believe that ACT has announced that they will be supporting VxWorks soon,
so you might want to contact them.  Also, there is an "unofficial" port, but
I have lost the URL for it.  But you might want to try it out that way.

-- 
Corey Minyard               Internet:  minyard@acm.org
  Work: minyard@nortel.ca       UUCP:  minyard@wf-rch.cirr.com

Re: Green Hills Ada library question (Ada on VxWorks)

[dewarr]

In article <m2ww75xghj.fsf_-_@wf-rch.cirr.com>,
  minyard@acm.org wrote:
> "bob" <bklungle@junque.com> writes:
> > Believe me, most of our users are disgusted with the Green Hills/Multi
> > system
> > for Ada (they came from a VERDIX/Rational environment), but there was no
> > other
> > available with vxworks targeted to the system we needed. We are seriously
> > thinking
> > of contacting ACT and see if there is a better solution there.
> >
> > If you would like more, no need to air laundry on USER group.
> >
>
> I believe that ACT has announced that they will be supporting VxWorks soon,
> so you might want to contact them.  Also, there is an "unofficial" port, but
> I have lost the URL for it.  But you might want to try it out that way.
>
> --
> Corey Minyard               Internet:  minyard@acm.org
>   Work: minyard@nortel.ca       UUCP:  minyard@wf-rch.cirr.com


We are currently supporting VxWorks in a number of
configurations, and have several major customers using
this technology. For details of GNATWorks (that is the
product name for GNAT/VxWorks ports), send mail to
sales@gnat.com (USA sales) or sales@act-europe.fr
(European sales).

Note that major work on the tasking interface and interrupt
interface has been done for GNATWorks, as well as significant
work on the debugger to get a fully operational remote
debugger with our Ada aware GUI. This is 3.11 based GNAT
technology.

Robert Dewar
Ada Core Technologies

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp   Create Your Own Free Member Forum

Re: Green Hills Ada library question (Ada on VxWorks)

[dennison]

In article <6tn22q$bk9$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
  dewarr@my-dejanews.com wrote:

> We are currently supporting VxWorks in a number of
> configurations, and have several major customers using
> this technology. For details of GNATWorks (that is the
> product name for GNAT/VxWorks ports), send mail to
> sales@gnat.com (USA sales) or sales@act-europe.fr
> (European sales).

If there is a freely-available version somewhere, I'd love to try it out
against our Greeen Hills system. If we have to pay for it up front though, I
don't think its going to happen.

--
T.E.D.

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp   Create Your Own Free Member Forum

Re: Green Hills Ada library question (Ada on VxWorks)

[dennison]

In article <m2ww75xghj.fsf_-_@wf-rch.cirr.com>,
  minyard@acm.org wrote:
> "bob" <bklungle@junque.com> writes:
> > available with vxworks targeted to the system we needed. We are seriously
> > thinking
> > of contacting ACT and see if there is a better solution there.
> I believe that ACT has announced that they will be supporting VxWorks soon,
> so you might want to contact them.  Also, there is an "unofficial" port, but
> I have lost the URL for it.  But you might want to try it out that way.

That's a little like saying they will be supporting Unix soon. VxWorks is a
(Real-time) OS that has been ported to many different architectures. I doubt a
single port would work on more than one of them.

--
T.E.D.

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp   Create Your Own Free Member Forum

Re: Green Hills Ada library question (Ada on VxWorks)

[dewar]

In article <6tmvrf$8pq$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
  dennison@telepath.com wrote:
> In article <m2ww75xghj.fsf_-_@wf-rch.cirr.com>,
>   minyard@acm.org wrote:
> > "bob" <bklungle@junque.com> writes:
> > > available with vxworks targeted to the system we needed. We are seriously
> > > thinking
> > > of contacting ACT and see if there is a better solution there.
> > I believe that ACT has announced that they will be supporting VxWorks soon,
> > so you might want to contact them.  Also, there is an "unofficial" port,
but
> > I have lost the URL for it.  But you might want to try it out that way.
>
> That's a little like saying they will be supporting Unix soon. VxWorks is a
> (Real-time) OS that has been ported to many different architectures. I doubt
a
> single port would work on more than one of them.
>
> --
> T.E.D.
>
> -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
> http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp   Create Your Own Free Member Forum
>


Actually that is quite wrong. One of the great strengths of
VxWorks is that it provides a remarkable degree of
architecture independence.
'
There are currently five VxWOrks ports of GNAT in use
(68K, PPC, MIPS-3000, Alpha, i960). What is remarkable
is how much of the code is common between these ports.

Robert Dewar
Ada Core Technologies

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp   Create Your Own Free Member Forum

Re: Green Hills Ada library question (Ada on VxWorks)

[dennison]

In article <6ts1bi$vbb$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
  dewar@gnat.com wrote:
> In article <6tmvrf$8pq$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
>   dennison@telepath.com wrote:
> > That's a little like saying they will be supporting Unix soon. VxWorks is a
> > (Real-time) OS that has been ported to many different architectures. I doubt
> a
> > single port would work on more than one of them.
>
> Actually that is quite wrong. One of the great strengths of
> VxWorks is that it provides a remarkable degree of
> architecture independence.
> '
> There are currently five VxWOrks ports of GNAT in use
> (68K, PPC, MIPS-3000, Alpha, i960). What is remarkable
> is how much of the code is common between these ports.

Its nice to know that this makes porting somewhat easier. But I note that you
still refer to versions on each platform as a "port", which was my point
entirely. There is no such thing as "a VxWorks port".  There is a 68K VxWorks
port, a PPC VxWorks port, etc.

What I would need is a PC-clone VxWorks port, which I note isn't in your list.
So no, I really wasn't that wrong at all.

--
T.E.D.

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp   Create Your Own Free Member Forum

Re: Green Hills Ada library question (Ada on VxWorks)

[Tarjei Tj�stheim Jensen]

dennison@telepath.com wrote in message
>What I would need is a PC-clone VxWorks port, which I note isn't in your list.
>So no, I really wasn't that wrong at all.


Isn't there some sort of framework (RTEMS) available for GNAT/PC? I seem to
remember that it included support for networking with some sort of 3Com network
card.

As someone on the lunatic fringe I would not be too put off if all that was
needed for my platform was to re-implement a driver for a network card. From
this you can safely determine that I know preciously little about RTEMS.

Linux might be an alternative to wxworks if your demands for real time are not
excessive. There is said to be a RT version of Linux, but its quality is
unknown to me.

OS/2 has some real time facilities which may be useful. There is an OS/2
version of GNAT available and I'm sure that Robert Dewar would be delighted if
more customers signed up for that port. The main problem with OS/2 real time
may be disk I/O. A book about OS/2 stated that the designed guaranteed response
should be within 4 ms when the disk I/O system was working.

It is possible to reduce the footprint on the disk of both OS/2 and Linux
significantly if one so desires. It should be possible to get a working
character based system for each onto a 3,5 inch floppy.

Greetings,

Re: Green Hills Ada library question (Ada on VxWorks)

[dennison]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1558 bytes --]

In article <6tts7j$4hk1@news.kvaerner.com>,
  "Tarjei Tj�stheim Jensen" <tarjei.jensen@kvaerner.no> wrote:
>
> dennison@telepath.com wrote in message
> >What I would need is a PC-clone VxWorks port, which I note isn't in your
list.
> Linux might be an alternative to wxworks if your demands for real time are not
> excessive. There is said to be a RT version of Linux, but its quality is
> unknown to me.
>

They are. We have to be scheduled reliably with minimal jitter at 240Hz, I
believe. The point wasn't that I'm looking for a RTOS, though. We are way past
that point. We are almost past the point where we can change compilers. I was
just wondering who else has tried to build a large system using Green Hills
AdaMulti, and  how they dealt with the tools.

With their tools, there seems to be no way to create scripts to "register" a
new system with the library. It has to be done *manualy* with the GUI, or by
reverse-engineering their build files and using external tools (like TCL).
The only reasonable solution I can see is to create hierarchal levels of
build files and maintain them in the revision system with the source code.
That makes it the developer's responsibility to maintain the build files.

Of course these files have to be created the first time. That means I have to
sit down with the mouse and make 42 of these files containing all 371 units.
Carpel-tunnel here I come!

--
T.E.D.

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp   Create Your Own Free Member Forum

Re: Green Hills Ada library question (Ada on VxWorks)

[dewarr]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2510 bytes --]

In article <6tu9n7$all$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
  dennison@telepath.com wrote:
> In article <6tts7j$4hk1@news.kvaerner.com>,
>   "Tarjei Tj�stheim Jensen" <tarjei.jensen@kvaerner.no> wrote:
> >
> > dennison@telepath.com wrote in message
> > >What I would need is a PC-clone VxWorks port, which I note isn't in your
> list.
> > Linux might be an alternative to wxworks if your demands for real time are
not
> > excessive. There is said to be a RT version of Linux, but its quality is
> > unknown to me.
> >
>
> They are. We have to be scheduled reliably with minimal jitter at 240Hz, I
> believe. The point wasn't that I'm looking for a RTOS, though. We are way
past
> that point. We are almost past the point where we can change compilers. I was
> just wondering who else has tried to build a large system using Green Hills
> AdaMulti, and  how they dealt with the tools.
>
> With their tools, there seems to be no way to create scripts to "register" a
> new system with the library. It has to be done *manualy* with the GUI, or by
> reverse-engineering their build files and using external tools (like TCL).
> The only reasonable solution I can see is to create hierarchal levels of
> build files and maintain them in the revision system with the source code.
> That makes it the developer's responsibility to maintain the build files.
>
> Of course these files have to be created the first time. That means I have to
> sit down with the mouse and make 42 of these files containing all 371 units.
> Carpel-tunnel here I come!
>
> --
> T.E.D.
>
> -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
> http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp   Create Your Own Free Member Forum


One interesting question here is whether you need tasking,
or whether a minimal runtime system, of the kind that would
typically be used in a safety-critical system, would be
usable. One approach that some of our customers are exploring
is the use of our GNORT (GNAT No Run-Time) technology that
provides a subset of Ada which generates absolutely ZERO
bytes of runtime. This means that you can simply generate
object files and then run them to the bare board using
whatever low level toolset is appropriate.

One customer for example is using OS/2 as the development
environment, and then GNORT for actual delivery to the
target system (which is a bare board x86).


-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp   Create Your Own Free Member Forum

Re: Green Hills Ada library question (Ada on VxWorks)

[dewarr]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2491 bytes --]

In article <6tu9n7$all$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
  dennison@telepath.com wrote:
> In article <6tts7j$4hk1@news.kvaerner.com>,
>   "Tarjei Tj�stheim Jensen" <tarjei.jensen@kvaerner.no> wrote:
> >
> > dennison@telepath.com wrote in message
> > >What I would need is a PC-clone VxWorks port, which I note isn't in your
> list.
> > Linux might be an alternative to wxworks if your demands for real time are
not
> > excessive. There is said to be a RT version of Linux, but its quality is
> > unknown to me.
> >
>
> They are. We have to be scheduled reliably with minimal jitter at 240Hz, I
> believe. The point wasn't that I'm looking for a RTOS, though. We are way
past
> that point. We are almost past the point where we can change compilers. I was
> just wondering who else has tried to build a large system using Green Hills
> AdaMulti, and  how they dealt with the tools.
>
> With their tools, there seems to be no way to create scripts to "register" a
> new system with the library. It has to be done *manualy* with the GUI, or by
> reverse-engineering their build files and using external tools (like TCL).
> The only reasonable solution I can see is to create hierarchal levels of
> build files and maintain them in the revision system with the source code.
> That makes it the developer's responsibility to maintain the build files.
>
> Of course these files have to be created the first time. That means I have to
> sit down with the mouse and make 42 of these files containing all 371 units.
> Carpel-tunnel here I come!
>
> --
> T.E.D.
>
> -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
> http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp   Create Your Own Free Member Forum


Incidentally: the reason that I said that PC-Clone was a
somewhat odd designation for an embedded system is that
at the bare board level, PC clones can have substantial
differences. These are masked when using some Microsoft
OS, since one of the things an OEM does is to provide
interfaces for implementation specific aspects of a
particular board.

So usually you want to be a bit more precise in designating
the target if you are building an embedded system. For
example, there is no such thing as a completely generic
TCP-IP ethernet interface at this level, the details will
depend on what particular ethernet card you are using.

Robert Dewar

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp   Create Your Own Free Member Forum

Re: Green Hills Ada library question (Ada on VxWorks)

[dennison]

In article <6u0bs4$ebm$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
  dewarr@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> In article <6tu9n7$all$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
>   dennison@telepath.com wrote:
> Incidentally: the reason that I said that PC-Clone was a
> somewhat odd designation for an embedded system is that
> at the bare board level, PC clones can have substantial
> differences. These are masked when using some Microsoft
> OS, since one of the things an OEM does is to provide
> interfaces for implementation specific aspects of a
> particular board.
>
> So usually you want to be a bit more precise in designating
> the target if you are building an embedded system. For
> example, there is no such thing as a completely generic
> TCP-IP ethernet interface at this level, the details will
> depend on what particular ethernet card you are using.

That is a reasonable point. There is a finite set of (rather common) PC TCP/IP
cards that VxWorks supports. We are limiting ourselves to that. I'm not doing
the hardware part of the job, but my understanding is that that is the only
place we are really constrained. I guess everything else is probably handled
through standard BIOS and chipset calls.

--
T.E.D.

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp   Create Your Own Free Member Forum

Re: Green Hills Ada library question (Ada on VxWorks)

[dewarr]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1973 bytes --]

In article <6tts7j$4hk1@news.kvaerner.com>,
  "Tarjei Tj�stheim Jensen" <tarjei.jensen@kvaerner.no> wrote:

> Isn't there some sort of framework (RTEMS) available for GNAT/PC? I seem to
> remember that it included support for networking with some sort of 3Com net
> network card.

The answer to this is yes, you should contact OAR for details
>

> OS/2 has some real time facilities which may be useful. There is an OS/2
> version of GNAT available and I'm sure that Robert Dewar would be delighted
> if more customers signed up for that port.
> The main problem with OS/2 real time
> may be disk I/O. A book about OS/2 stated that the designed
> guaranteed response
> should be within 4 ms when
> the disk I/O system was working.


A couple of quick notes on OS/2 disk I/O.

First, right now, you get dramatically improved performance
from using HPFS386 if you have a decent sized memory. On
my TP770 which has 160megs, the link time for the GNAT
compiler itself went from 90 seconds to 5 seconds when
I switched to HPFS386. Unfortunately, due as I understand
it to licensing difficulties with microsoft, HPFS386 is
only available with OS/2 server. HPFS386 has much better
interruption characteristics as well.

The good news is that there is a completely new journaling
file system for OS/2 coming out soon (yes, contrary to the
as-usual-totally-uninformed conventional wisdom, OS/2 is
alive and well and still being maintained and developed :-)

Whether OS/2 or Linux would be suitable for real time use on
a bare board embedded PC is dubious. I certainly would find
it odd if either of these were really competitive with
VxWorks. But perhaps you are right, the application may
simply not require this kind of low level low overhead
real time executive. A lot of people throw the term
"real time" around pretty loosely!

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp   Create Your Own Free Member Forum

Re: Green Hills Ada library question (Ada on VxWorks)

[dewar]

In article <6ttoaj$mnt$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
  dennison@telepath.com wrote:
> In article <6ts1bi$vbb$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
>   dewar@gnat.com wrote:
> > In article <6tmvrf$8pq$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> >   dennison@telepath.com wrote:
> > > That's a little like saying they will be supporting Unix soon. VxWorks is
a
> > > (Real-time) OS that has been ported to many different architectures. I
doubt
> > a
> > > single port would work on more than one of them.
> >
> > Actually that is quite wrong. One of the great strengths of
> > VxWorks is that it provides a remarkable degree of
> > architecture independence.
> > '
> > There are currently five VxWOrks ports of GNAT in use
> > (68K, PPC, MIPS-3000, Alpha, i960). What is remarkable
> > is how much of the code is common between these ports.
>
> Its nice to know that this makes porting somewhat easier. But I note that you
> still refer to versions on each platform as a "port", which was my point
> entirely. There is no such thing as "a VxWorks port".  There is a 68K VxWorks
> port, a PPC VxWorks port, etc.
>
> What I would need is a PC-clone VxWorks port, which I note isn't in your li
> list.So no, I really wasn't that wrong at all.
>
> --
> T.E.D.
>
> -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
> http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp   Create Your Own Free Member Forum
>

No, that is still confused. Yes, of course every separate
software product is a separate port. For example, the VMS
version for VMS 7.1 and 7.2 is a separate port, at the very
least, it needs full QA testing on the new version of the
operating system.

I am not sure what you mean by a VxWorks port for a PC clone,
that's a rather odd designation, makes me think that T.E.D.
has not actually worked with VxWorks at all. A more
reasonable query would be a port for some particular
x86 board, and indeed this is certainly possible. T.E.D.
if you are interested in such a product, let us know, and
we will be happy to give you a quote.

My list certainly did not include all the GNAT ports for
VxWorks that we *can* provide, just the ones that we have
provided so far.

Most certainly embedded applications using VxWorks tend to
require more customization than off the shelf native ports.
No question about that! We certainly expect to have to
provide more specialized support during the installation
process for example, which is why we charge more for
GNATWorks (the designation for ports of GNAT Professional
for VxWorks) than for native ports.

Robert Dewar
Ada Core Technologies

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp   Create Your Own Free Member Forum

Re: Green Hills Ada library question (Ada on VxWorks)

[Marin David Condic, 561.796.8997, M/S 731-96]

dewarr@MY-DEJANEWS.COM writes:
>One interesting question here is whether you need tasking,
>or whether a minimal runtime system, of the kind that would
>typically be used in a safety-critical system, would be
>usable. One approach that some of our customers are exploring
>is the use of our GNORT (GNAT No Run-Time) technology that
>provides a subset of Ada which generates absolutely ZERO
>bytes of runtime. This means that you can simply generate
>object files and then run them to the bare board using
>whatever low level toolset is appropriate.
>
>One customer for example is using OS/2 as the development
>environment, and then GNORT for actual delivery to the
>target system (which is a bare board x86).
>
    I'm curious about GNORT. Does the "zero bytes of runtime" mean
    that there are no compiler supplied procedures or functions that
    are ever called to do some common task? By which, I mean something
    like common code that does a bounds check and raises an exception,
    or something similar. I do  not mean something like the standard
    libraries for math functions, etc. (Those you can possibly treat
    as regular packages as if you wrote them yourself, provided you
    have enough information about the actual implementation) All the
    code for whatever statements are compiled is generated as some
    in-line machine code?

    If you were to allow for subroutines for common operations like
    bounds checking, would there be any difference in providing
    subroutines for more complex features, such as task scheduling?
    (Other than the possible non-determinism. I'm thinking that a
    run-time library is not necessarily evil if it results in smaller
    code by sharing some frequently repeated operations and the
    tradeoff between procedure call overhead and space savings is
    reasonable.)

    Just curious about how this stuff is done...

    MDC
Marin David Condic, Senior Computer Engineer     Voice:     561.796.8997
Pratt & Whitney GESP, M/S 731-95, P.O.B. 109600  Fax:       561.796.4669
West Palm Beach, FL, 33410-9600                  Internet:  CONDICMA@PWFL.COM
=============================================================================
    "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
    one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore
    all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
        --  G.B. Shaw
=============================================================================

Re: Green Hills Ada library question (Ada on VxWorks)

[dewarr]

In article <98092209530702@psavax.pwfl.com>,
  "Marin David Condic, 561.796.8997, M/S 731-96" <condicma@PWFL.COM> wrote:
> dewarr@MY-DEJANEWS.COM writes:
> >One interesting question here is whether you need tasking,
> >or whether a minimal runtime system, of the kind that would
> >typically be used in a safety-critical system, would be
> >usable. One approach that some of our customers are exploring
> >is the use of our GNORT (GNAT No Run-Time) technology that
> >provides a subset of Ada which generates absolutely ZERO
> >bytes of runtime. This means that you can simply generate
> >object files and then run them to the bare board using
> >whatever low level toolset is appropriate.
> >
> >One customer for example is using OS/2 as the development
> >environment, and then GNORT for actual delivery to the
> >target system (which is a bare board x86).
> >
>     I'm curious about GNORT. Does the "zero bytes of runtime" mean
>     that there are no compiler supplied procedures or functions that
>     are ever called to do some common task? By which, I mean something
>     like common code that does a bounds check and raises an exception,
>     or something similar. I do  not mean something like the standard
>     libraries for math functions, etc. (Those you can possibly treat
>     as regular packages as if you wrote them yourself, provided you
>     have enough information about the actual implementation) All the
>     code for whatever statements are compiled is generated as some
>     in-line machine code?
>
>     If you were to allow for subroutines for common operations like
>     bounds checking, would there be any difference in providing
>     subroutines for more complex features, such as task scheduling?
>     (Other than the possible non-determinism. I'm thinking that a
>     run-time library is not necessarily evil if it results in smaller
>     code by sharing some frequently repeated operations and the
>     tradeoff between procedure call overhead and space savings is
>     reasonable.)
>
>     Just curious about how this stuff is done...
>
>     MDC

Right, there are NO runtime routines of any kind. All code
is generated inline. No one is saying that a run-time library
is evil, the problem is that in a certified environment you
have to use a certified run-time.

Not only is it expensive to certify a run-time, an expense
that is inevitably passed on to the user, but in any case it
is preferable to not have to rely on some separate
certification procedure, but instead to certify all your
own code, and have that be the only code that needs
certifying.

GNORT is certainly not for everyone, it is specifically
intended for meeting the needs for safety critical
certified code at a relatively modest cost, compared to
the use of certified run-times.

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp   Create Your Own Free Member Forum

Re: Green Hills Ada library question (Ada on VxWorks)

[Jim Chelini]

dewarr@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> 
> In article <98092209530702@psavax.pwfl.com>,
>   "Marin David Condic, 561.796.8997, M/S 731-96" <condicma@PWFL.COM> wrote:
> > dewarr@MY-DEJANEWS.COM writes:
> > >One interesting question here is whether you need tasking,
> > >or whether a minimal runtime system, of the kind that would
> > >typically be used in a safety-critical system, would be
> > >usable. One approach that some of our customers are exploring
> > >is the use of our GNORT (GNAT No Run-Time) technology that
> > >provides a subset of Ada which generates absolutely ZERO
> > >bytes of runtime. This means that you can simply generate
> > >object files and then run them to the bare board using
> > >whatever low level toolset is appropriate.
> > >
> > >One customer for example is using OS/2 as the development
> > >environment, and then GNORT for actual delivery to the
> > >target system (which is a bare board x86).
> > >
> >     I'm curious about GNORT. Does the "zero bytes of runtime" mean
> >     that there are no compiler supplied procedures or functions that
> >     are ever called to do some common task? By which, I mean something
> >     like common code that does a bounds check and raises an exception,
> >     or something similar. I do  not mean something like the standard
> >     libraries for math functions, etc. (Those you can possibly treat
> >     as regular packages as if you wrote them yourself, provided you
> >     have enough information about the actual implementation) All the
> >     code for whatever statements are compiled is generated as some
> >     in-line machine code?
> >
> >     If you were to allow for subroutines for common operations like
> >     bounds checking, would there be any difference in providing
> >     subroutines for more complex features, such as task scheduling?
> >     (Other than the possible non-determinism. I'm thinking that a
> >     run-time library is not necessarily evil if it results in smaller
> >     code by sharing some frequently repeated operations and the
> >     tradeoff between procedure call overhead and space savings is
> >     reasonable.)
> >
> >     Just curious about how this stuff is done...
> >
> >     MDC
> 
> Right, there are NO runtime routines of any kind. All code
> is generated inline. No one is saying that a run-time library
> is evil, the problem is that in a certified environment you
> have to use a certified run-time.

Robert is correct here. In a safety critical application, the runtime 
must be certifable to the same level of assurance as the application.

> 
> Not only is it expensive to certify a run-time, an expense
> that is inevitably passed on to the user, but in any case it
> is preferable to not have to rely on some separate
> certification procedure, but instead to certify all your
> own code, and have that be the only code that needs
> certifying.

The above statement is a little confusing.  There are several points to
consider
1. > Not only is it expensive to certify a run-time, an expense that is
inevitably passed on to the user
2. >preferable to not have to rely on some separate certification
procedure
3. >certify all your own code,
4. >have that be the only code that needs certifying.

Point 1:
There is an expense to provide certification evidence for a runtime and 
given it is a commercial product (just like the compiler) the cost of
that product is passed to the user.  Typically, the cost for the user to
create this type of evidence greatly exceeds the cost of the COTS
package. 

Point 2:
There is no seperate certification procedure.  If we take the avionics
domain as an example, there is a single process for software
certification - DO-178B.  Now, software on its own can not be certified,
it must be part of an avionics function - hardware and software that
perform a specific function(s), i.e., a braking system, GPS, etc.

Point 3:
The generation of certification evidence for the runtime, must follow
the same procedures as the application.
The use of in-lining the "runtime" with the application shifts the
burden of certification of "runtime" elements from the vendor to the
user.  The user must now explain what the in-lined code does and ensure
it is correctly used.  For a Level A system, this would include
structural (coverage) testing to the machine code level.  For a runtime,
the burden of proof is on the vendor who must submit the certification
materials to the customer's experts (and sometimes national
certification authorities, FAA) for review and acceptance.  The vendor
should warrent these materials to meet the certification requirements.

Point 4:
A good compiler environment will include a linker capable of removing
unused functions, thereby giving the user only the code they need.  The
use of a certifiable runtime then leads to an application with complete
life cycle data for the runtime features used by the given application -
no more.  When the application is updated (which is normal given the
long life of the applications), if new runtime elements are included -
the evidence is still available, reducing costs to the program in later
phases.  

> 
> GNORT is certainly not for everyone, it is specifically
> intended for meeting the needs for safety critical
> certified code at a relatively modest cost, compared to
> the use of certified run-times.

See above points.  There are pros and cons on both sides but the user
should be aware of what they are signing up for.


> 
> -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
> http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp   Create Your Own Free Member Forum