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,FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,9eb88bb80477ed08 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!news.glorb.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local01.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.comcast.com!news.comcast.com.POSTED!not-for-mail NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2005 15:25:34 -0500 Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2005 16:25:51 -0400 From: Jeff C User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (Windows/20050317) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: ADA compilers References: <1117824959.948009.323740@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1117825921.600449.93990@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> In-Reply-To: <1117825921.600449.93990@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.147.74.171 X-Trace: sv3-AIIgMq/m1xTbJO4F7s5CSHpY5xkAgbWkQrGyFTdan3ZRrwLRGO1WG1zpwkLvSlIOyxZb5cw9MSFuS+u!KELA+edzckwypcLnvIJuH1Q5YsZ2xT8K1Y2jjbYxjukNOx2BWabVPI0aEuxmuw== X-Complaints-To: abuse@comcast.net X-DMCA-Complaints-To: dmca@comcast.net X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.3.32 Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:11223 Date: 2005-06-03T16:25:51-04:00 List-Id: Patty wrote: > Yes, we are trying to port an existing application. I have looked at > GNAT, but they only have ADA95. > The issues involved with an update from Ada 83 to Ada 95 are <<= any issues you will run into with simply porting code from one compiler/os to another. If the existing code makes use of a lot of vendor specific packages and it does not encapsulate it well, this will be a bit of work. In any case if I were doing a bid (and I've done lots of them) the port from Ada 83 to Ada 95 would probably not even how up in the last digit compared to any other issues associated with the port. What can be a bit more difficult (situation I have been in for a long time) is when you need the same (or mostly the same) codebase to be backwards compatible with the old compiler for some time. The only trouble in this case is just verifying from time to time that you did not "leak" any ada 95 features into your code base. In any case I've got about 150K SLOC of Ada 83 that I also use with an Ada 95 compiler (with Ada 83 being the primary compiler still for a variety of reasons) and I've only got 1 file that is branched to make the Ada 83 work with the Ada 95 compiler because it is Ada 95 (note there are 5 or 6 other branched files but these are branched due to some vendor specific library issues or other areas that are due to vendor differences and not Ada language revision differences).