Re: GNAT and register allocation

[Stephen Leake <stephen_leake@stephe-leake.org>]

Georg Bauhaus <rm.dash-bauhaus@futureapps.de> writes:

> On 22.04.12 19:39, Jacob Sparre Andersen wrote:
>> Georg Bauhaus wrote:
>>
>>>>> I must use one set of options for an entire program in this case.
>>
>>> This requirement is likely a fact (external) that we can't change.
>>
>> But aren't you adhering to the requirement, if you execute "gnatmake -P
>> some_project_file" to build the entire program?  Or is it mandated that
>> each child process of "gnatmake" should have the same build options?
>>
>> Do you know (and are you free to tell us) the rationale for the
>> requirement?
>
> It's nothing spectacular; the setup of a many languages project
> (nothing critical, but possibly reputational ;-) is currently such
> that its central circuits invoke translators with options.
> That is, no configuration files or anything.  One reason for this
> restriction is---I am just guessing here---that the makers of the
> setup have enough work to do and would not want to tackle yet another
> configuration language. Also, the use of configuration files is
> less transparent to users of other languages than just switches;
> they make things more understandable and more comparable.

I think (well-written) gpr files are _much_ more understandable than
comparable makefiles for C!

Tell them the .gpr is just another source file, that _you_ maintain; why
should they care? Other source files are named on command lines for
other translators.

> And this kind of control works with pretty much every language

And you can do anything in assembler.

-- 
-- Stephe