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=-0.4 required=5.0 tests=AC_FROM_MANY_DOTS,BAYES_00 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,ea451393a6c97734 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-04-23 12:00:27 PST Path: newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news.tele.dk!193.251.151.101!opentransit.net!wanadoo.fr!isdnet!psinet-france!psiuk-f4!psiuk-p4!uknet!psiuk-n!news.pace.co.uk!nh.pace.co.uk!not-for-mail From: "Marin David Condic" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Mixing Cygnus & Gnat compilers on the same machine Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 14:44:13 -0400 Organization: Posted on a server owned by Pace Micro Technology plc Message-ID: <9c1t5v$gg$1@nh.pace.co.uk> References: <9bkd51$530$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <3ADDEEAA.D8F16935@bigfoot.de> <9bkt30$asm$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <3ADE4B03.68BA6651@bigfoot.de> <9bmphh$1jt$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <9bpfgk$1gb$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <9c1gmg$p55$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <3AE45854.DA5ECDC3@silver.jhuapl.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: 136.170.200.133 X-Trace: nh.pace.co.uk 988051455 528 136.170.200.133 (23 Apr 2001 18:44:15 GMT) X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@pace.co.uk NNTP-Posting-Date: 23 Apr 2001 18:44:15 GMT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Xref: newsfeed.google.com comp.lang.ada:6864 Date: 2001-04-23T18:44:15+00:00 List-Id: "Scott Ingram" wrote in message news:3AE45854.DA5ECDC3@silver.jhuapl.edu... > There are some weird and wonderful things that can be done with gcc. > For example > it is relatively easy to have two or more versions of gcc in the same > tree. (Examine > the "-V" option.) Unfortunately, this is where the merge of the sources > becomes > important...the 2.9x versions of gcc are not Ada aware, so it makes no > sense to use > this particular feature. > This thread started out with a somewhat different problem - I was trying to make sure that if I installed Gnat/PC/NT onto my machine that I would not somehow clobber the Cygnus/gcc/embedded MIPS compiler. This part seems to have been resolved with an answer of "Yes you can - some minor details to be resolved along the way..." The conversation forked to the merger of the Gnat compiler with the gcc compiler at the Gnu website and so on from there. My observation being that if the Gnat code merged with the Gnu distribution that it might eventually meander its way into the Cygnus compiler that targets my embedded machine. I very much do not want to attempt to monkey around with the Cygnus compiler and attempt to get the Ada front end integrated with it. Nothing down that path would constitute "real work" for us here and we tend to have our hands full making money for the stockholders rather than tinkering with compilers out of curiosity or a labor of love. It would also be a problem in that we are going to regularly get updates for the Cygnus compiler and any local tinkering starts to create headaches for merger. There isn't an Ada mandate to comply with (or seek to get out from under! :-) or any other "real work" reason to ask for more problems than we already have, so unless the compiler comes from Cygnus with Ada already a part of it (as we get C++ as a part of the C compiler) there is no way I can justify trying to do anything with it unless it is a trivial amount of work. Everyone here is a C weenie (except for me) so I just can't see any way of finding a frontal assault into the organization. ("You want to spend time doing what??? We're doing everything in C - why change it now? It ain't broke - don't even think of trying to fix it! We've got a schedule to maintain. You're out of your mind!" :-) > I think customizations for your platform are unlikely (can't be ruled > out of course,) > but building a cross compiler for a supported platform is relatively > trivial. As Stephe > notes, it does require following the directions very carefully. > We've got a MIPS processor with some very specialized stuff tightly glued onto it. We've got our own non-off-the-shelf OS (although it is becoming a *kind* of Off The Shelf OS... But I digress) and there are some really big numbers of units utilizing all of the above. I can't rule out that someone hasn't paid Cygnus to do something to the compiler that adapts it better to our platform. That said, you can add this to one more reason NOT to muck about with it. > Have you built gnat from sources? I am certainly willing to help if you > need to. > Nope. One day as a hobby or some business venture or brandy-new startup project, I might find an excuse to do this. As it stands, (and to paraphrase Marx) "Work is the curse of the tinkering man." The demands of getting the job out the door may allow for a little newsgroup participation and the occasional sideline hack job, but building Gnat (or gcc) from sources sounds like it would be a bit too time consuming to undertake unless I had some specific purpose in mind. Not having one (and having plenty of other sideline projects that I *do* have specific purposes in mind for if one day they stop languishing from neglect & move forward...) I don't want to start investing time into learning how to rebuild/modify Gnat. > > > When they get merged, the source will be available in your distribution > from > Cygnus. Since you are using gcc, I presume that there is no requirement > for > a validated compiler to start with. In that case it simply becomes a > matter > of rebuilding the compiler. (Unless you are also using g++, which is > problematic > but not insurmountable.) Unless there is some requirement for you to > NOT rebuild > the compiler...but then we run into a management issue that will have to > be > resolved somehow. > No I don't need a validated compiler. I was kind of given the impression that there would be more to it than simply rebuilding the compiler from sources anyway (otherwise, why wouldn't it then suddenly appear when Cygnus rebuilt from sources?) I'd certainly believe there would be bugs & testing needed to get a fully functional product working. (Go look at comments elsewhere in this thread). I'd easily believe that Cygnus could choose to make Ada a part of their release and, with some non-Zero level of effort, get the Ada front end integrated with the rest of their stuff. For me to try to do that without a mandate would not be a good idea. > > I think the issue here is "specific paths." Technically there is no > difficulty > mixing the compilers, or even mixing objects generated by the current > versions... > perhaps you could elaborate? > By "specific paths" I mean that if Ada gets into the organization via a specific path, it does so basically unnoticed and unchallenged. I don't mean by some "technical" path (environment variables, etc). If Ada rides in piggybacked on top of the Cygnus compiler, nobody is going to say "No, you can't do that!" If it came in via having to get somebody to purchase it and get a project to sign up for it, etc., you all of a sudden have to justify it and are probably going to get told "No, you can't do that!" Its always easier for someone to say "No" than to say "Yes" - so its better if nobody has to even see it coming. MDC -- Marin David Condic Senior Software Engineer Pace Micro Technology Americas www.pacemicro.com Enabling the digital revolution e-Mail: marin.condic@pacemicro.com Web: http://www.mcondic.com/