From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,a32653cf595422e6 X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Received: by 10.68.211.136 with SMTP id nc8mr1350755pbc.6.1335270198344; Tue, 24 Apr 2012 05:23:18 -0700 (PDT) Path: r9ni93000pbh.0!nntp.google.com!news1.google.com!npeer03.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!post02.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.flashnewsgroups.com-b7.4zTQh5tI3A!not-for-mail From: Stephen Leake Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: GNAT and register allocation References: <4f9138c2$0$6628$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net> <4f9145b5$0$6557$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net> <4f918218$0$6557$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net> <82r4vhi8v4.fsf@stephe-leake.org> <4f94352f$0$6625$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net> <87aa23d5tz.fsf@adaheads.sparre-andersen.dk> <4f9474d4$0$7611$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net> Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 08:24:02 -0400 Message-ID: <82lillgvx9.fsf@stephe-leake.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.2 (windows-nt) Cancel-Lock: sha1:NZ9xr3O55fYo3j0wuvDBoQtUuDU= MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Complaints-To: abuse@flashnewsgroups.com Organization: FlashNewsgroups.com X-Trace: 23c494f969b36e029e66115450 X-Received-Bytes: 2659 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: 2012-04-24T08:24:02-04:00 List-Id: Georg Bauhaus 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