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 10.68.129.9 with SMTP id ns9mr2566553pbb.1.1335354614552; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 04:50:14 -0700 (PDT) Path: r9ni96724pbh.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> <82lillgvx9.fsf@stephe-leake.org> <4f96aa50$0$7617$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net> Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 07:51:03 -0400 Message-ID: <82vckof2s8.fsf@stephe-leake.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.2 (windows-nt) Cancel-Lock: sha1:5QFjfDwKG/k4FiejQdQn5IER/3k= MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Complaints-To: abuse@flashnewsgroups.com Organization: FlashNewsgroups.com X-Trace: 5af154f97e4f6e029e66118621 X-Received-Bytes: 2487 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: 2012-04-25T07:51:03-04:00 List-Id: Georg Bauhaus 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, and is kept with the rest of the Ada source code, what's the problem? -- -- Stephe