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: a07f3367d7,d87fe6752812f07a X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII Path: g2news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!z7g2000vbh.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: Martin Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: GNAT on WinXP: System.OS_Lib.Spawn raises Program_Error Date: Sun, 3 May 2009 02:42:05 -0700 (PDT) Organization: http://groups.google.com Message-ID: <8bf518b8-a5dc-4aca-92af-16520860050d@z7g2000vbh.googlegroups.com> References: <50d832b4-140d-4029-8d7c-9397115160ba@u8g2000yqn.googlegroups.com> <923b28dd-46ee-40cb-b13e-5f8860405f22@r36g2000vbr.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 86.148.100.78 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1241343725 19921 127.0.0.1 (3 May 2009 09:42:05 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 3 May 2009 09:42:05 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: z7g2000vbh.googlegroups.com; posting-host=86.148.100.78; posting-account=g4n69woAAACHKbpceNrvOhHWViIbdQ9G User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; en-US; rv:1.9.0.10) Gecko/2009042315 Firefox/3.0.10,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:5665 Date: 2009-05-03T02:42:05-07:00 List-Id: On May 2, 9:39=A0pm, a...@anon.org (anon) wrote: > Martin > > GNAT.OS_LIB existed in GNAT 3.15p =A0but since GNAT 2005 it have been > moved to System.OS_LIB. =A0And the GNAT.OS_LIB just renames System.OS_LIB > which makes this package a legacy for older projects and can be avoided f= or > future use. It just causes more work for the compiler which increase the > compile time. Still there in the Win32 GPL 2008 edition. > Plus, there are only 6 System files in the RM Ada standards: > > =A0 0. System > =A0 1. =A0 System.Address_To_Access_Conversions > =A0 2. =A0 System.Machine_Code > =A0 3. =A0 System.RPC > =A0 4. =A0 System.Storage_Elements > =A0 5. =A0 System.Storage_Pools > > All others System packages like all GNAT packages are non RM Ada > standard package list. And any GNAT Ada programmer should know that. You're assuming a level of knowledge that I don't find in the real world. > Adacore's annual or GNU quarterly update of GNAT is the Ada standard, for > most people and schools, and very few programmers will use anything else. I have no proof that 'very few programmers will use anything else' and I suspect you don't either. I've used (professionally) 7 Ada compilers that I can think of off the top of my head. And at least 1 more that I've just on a personal level. That's not counting all the different versions of each compiler separately. > And any improvement that Adacore makes that is passed to GNU version will > become to most programmers, additions to the Ada standards. =A0Just like = a > lot of programmers were using the Ada 2005 specs before they were approve= d > in January, 2008. GNAT extensions are not likely to become standard. Ada2005 specs were _very_ likely to become standard. Besides, I assume were all here in c.l.a. because we want to see _more_ Ada in the world, so hopefully that means more people using all Ada compilers and not just GNAT. We should be pointing out the 'right thing to do' to all and let them make their minds up. > Plus, "GNATLINK" uses "System.OS_LIB.spawn" to call the "gcc" compiler > to compile the binder generated file. =A0If this was not OK, then why wou= ld > Adacore or GNU use it? Because AdaCore / GNU and certainly not going to port they're code to a different compiler. > And finally the RM allows the usages of additional System packages to be > included in a standard. =A0System.OS_LIB is an "implementation-defined > children of System" see, RM 13.7 (36), The RM also allows the use of 'goto', are you advocating wide-spread use of this facility too? Just because something is allowed does not make it a 'good idea'. > So you need to stop with the idea using non standard packages is a "bad > idea". Plus, all that is needed is a few comments for future version of > GNAT. And that because most programs written with GNAT will almost > never be move from GNAT, so only updating comments are needed. Sorry, that's just pants. I just went though a porting exercise at work where a project was looking to migrate from XD-Ada/68k to / PowerPC. One issue with XD-Ada based systems was that XD-Ada included various non-standard extensions to package System - types of a known size. This is the 2nd project I've seen that made _large_scale_ use of these types throughout their code. Perfectly avoidable (by defining types they know to match the size required, perhaps even calling it 'Interfaces') or limiting the effect by defining their own 'Project_System' package. The 1st option would have involved 0 hours work the 2nd option a 2 minute job with minimal source code files touched. In the end _dozens_ of files needed to be modified and that incurs a lot more time (i.e. money) to check / re- test. Like I said - this is not the first time this has happened (and not just with Ada - VC++ no hasn't come with , only , since 2005 and I've seen projects which started post-98 when was the standard header defined get bitten by this). Cheers -- Martin