Re: GNAT and register allocation

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

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

> On 24.04.12 14:24, Stephen Leake wrote:
>
>> I think (well-written) gpr files are _much_ more understandable than
>> comparable makefiles for C!
>
> Yes, GNAT project files are understandable, though non-portable TTBOMK.

What do you mean by "portable" here?

> Gpr files will likely not be used by those who code for Intel's
> Fortran compiler, or the C part of GCC; they can easily specify
> IFCOPTS or GCCOPTS referenced in Makefiles.

Why is that relevant?

People coding for Ada won't use IFCOPTS or GCCOPTS either.

On the other hand, people coding for C and Fortran _can_ use gpr files;
they work with anything that looks like a compiler (_not_ limited to Gnu
tools). But they don't have to just because you do.

> The Makefile for all C programs, or C++ programs, and a number of other
> languages currently looks simlar to this:
>
> %.c : %.systematic-name
> 	mv $< $@
>
> %.executable : %.c
> 	$(CC) -pipe -Wall $(COPTS) $(GCCOPTS) $< -o $@
>
> So the source text can be all in one file, the translation is kept simple.
> GNAT also gets only two lines, one for gnatchop, the other for gnatmake.

So if that gnatmake line includes -P<file>, and <file> is kept with the
rest of the Ada source code, what's the problem?

-- 
-- Stephe