Re: ada compiler?

[anon@anon.org (anon)]

First, you better check the RM again. I found it in the RM by accident. 
And since this group like to harp on the RM you should know what it 
says.

In using the three phases of programming allows the use of parallel 
compiling, Most "make"s or "gnatmake" will only allow serial 
compiles. For example when you are only updating comments or 
copyright info in all packages and recompiling, you do not need to 
worry about compiling errors, only the time it takes to rebuild the 
system. Running, 16, 24, 32, etc compilers in parallel is more 
efficient that using a serial make. Afterwards, a quick Binding and 
end with a link and your done.

If you do not remember how to build a Janus/Ada then I hope that 
no one's life have to depends upon you code!!! 

Take Pride in your Work! And your memory!


In <fhli74$5p1$1@jacob-sparre.dk>, "Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com> writes:
>"anon" <anon@anon.org> wrote in message
>news:kwd_i.94821$kj1.82854@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>> -- You have to learn to crawl before you can walk and learn the rules
>> -- to walk before you should run.
>>
>> First, GNAT may be the only Ada 2005 compiler at the movement but that
>> may change if other posters arecorrect. Second, GNAT is not the only
>> compiler in use today, people are still using Ada 95 from other vendors.
>> Software vedors like GHS, IBM, and Janas have Ada compilers and not one
>> of them use "gnatmake".
>
>That's surely true. But the first thing we try to teach programmers (on page
>3 of our installation instructions) is to use "make" or "jmake" to do
>compiles, rather than running the compiler phases individually. We've had a
>tool called "make" (or "jmake" on Unix-like systems, since "make" is already
>taken) since the mid-80s, and unlike most other programming languages, it is
>fully automated. The only time I use individual compile or link commands is
>when debugging the compiler.
>
>>  But all vendors including Adacore uses a version
>> of the three steps to build an Ada partition.
>
>Sure, if you want to tear your hair out rather than letting the computer do
>the difficult work of calculating a legal compilation order.
>
>> And if you check with the Ada LRM you will see that the LM promotes a
>> concept of not wasting or hogging resources.  Since "gnatmake" is a
>> resource hog the concept states that it should not be used. And as most
>> poster say the Ada LRM is the final word.
>
>Gee, I think I know something about the RM, and I don't recall any such
>statement about the compilation environment. Could you provide a referemce?
>Perhaps you are confusing a statement about the user's program as applying
>to the compilation environment?  Or perhaps you are taking some
>non-normative text as having some important meaning??
>
>> Plus, if Adacore is sold and gutted, goes out of business, or falls out of
>> favor with other companies.  The newbees need to know the concept of
>> how an Ada partition is generated.
>
>It's different for every Ada compiler. There's little knowledge that can be
>carried over, so it simply doesn't matter.
>
>> Now just to be funny. Adacore would love to hear this but, the boss's
>blood
>> pressure might hit the roof. That is, if the programmer said, "I do not
>know
>> how to build a Ada program without using 'gnatmake' ".
>
>*I* barely remember how to build an Ada program using Janus/Ada commands
>other than "make", and I *designed* and *wrote* much of Janus/Ada!!
>Obviously, there is value to knowing alternative ways of doing things, but
>they should very rarely be needed. It's probably better to spend your
>learning things that you'll actually use in your job, but what do I know.
>;-)
>
>                        Randy.
>
>
>
>