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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,6a9844368dd0a842 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: jsa@organon.com (Jon S Anthony) Subject: Re: seperate keyword and seperate compilation with Gnat? Date: 1996/07/05 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 163909865 sender: news@organon.com (news) references: <31D95D93.28D8D15B@jinx.sckans.edu> organization: Organon Motives, Inc. newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-07-05T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) writes: > "So, these bits seem to indicate that GNAT is playing a little loose with > the rules. But -" > > Nope, not true! You are making a fundamental assumption that is wrong, > namely that compilation as defined in the RM corresponds to compilation > with the default options using gcc. > > No one told you this -- you just assumed it :-) Touche'... > > If you want to get formal, the compilation process in the RM corresponds > to compiling with the -gnatc switch, then the post-compilation step > can be done with gnatmake. > > In fact we use exactly this approach for some of the complex multi-file > tests in the ACVC suite. > > So you can discuss if you like the pragmatic implications of the GNAT > approach, as Bob and I have already done, but don't spend time trying > to see if the RM allows a compiler to require that subunits be present > when the parent unit is compiled, it definitely does NOT, but neither > does GNAT, when you use the proper compilation approach. Gee, and after all that work! :-) /Jon -- Jon Anthony Organon Motives, Inc. 1 Williston Road, Suite 4 Belmont, MA 02178 617.484.3383 jsa@organon.com