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: 103376,8143b93889fe9472 X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Received: by 10.180.89.100 with SMTP id bn4mr687029wib.7.1359478736095; Tue, 29 Jan 2013 08:58:56 -0800 (PST) Path: i11ni25976wiw.0!nntp.google.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: Niklas Holsti Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Ada standard and maximum line lengths Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 18:58:54 +0200 Organization: Tidorum Ltd Message-ID: References: <8dfcf819-e1d0-4578-a795-a4bf724b5014@googlegroups.com> <5107b329$0$6556$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net> <5107eaed$0$6566$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Trace: individual.net 9j0hw02rgcHE1EzGewhASQZY0SAYkGjl0BvsAu0oMmF5ikCq2+qlmRAeVt2T1EQAY+ Cancel-Lock: sha1:R//zf64J2u+po1+jte/hUyxmhe4= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130107 Thunderbird/17.0.2 In-Reply-To: <5107eaed$0$6566$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: 2013-01-29T18:58:54+02:00 List-Id: On 13-01-29 17:29 , Georg Bauhaus wrote: > On 29.01.13 13:31, Niklas Holsti wrote: >> Even for hypothetical SW of some sort that generates Ada source code >> automatically, I think it very unlikely that it would generate >> identifiers of that length, since Ada identifiers can be qualified and >> sorted into packages etc. much more flexibly than is the case for linker >> symbols. > > GNAT writes similar identifiers into object files, and > the same hysterical raisins spoil the cake. At least the > names---those to be exported to other compilers---seem shorter > if package hierarchies are not used extensively. So what? These are *linker symbols*, not Ada (source) identifiers. I don't understand why you bring them into a discussion of source-code identifier lengths. In many cases, for example for the C++ symbol that you gave, the symbols are not even lexically legal Ada identifiers. > Alas, the problem of exceedingly long names in object files > can be worked around by allowing lengthy identifiers in source > text. Incomprehensible. Is there a "not" missing somewhere in that sentence? While long linker symbols are ugly, and a poor work-around for linker weaknesses, they are troublesome only for people who deal with low-level debugging, or other tools on that level. > There is a better alternative. It needs to address the > issue at some object interchange level, which is typed. > Something between function libraries from around 1970 and > {.NET, JVM, Corba, Zero-C Ice, ...}. Certainly the linker principles and operations could stand improvement and modernisation. Not to speak of the unspeakably (as I said :-)) poor documentation of symbolic information emitted by compilers and stored in "standard" forms like DWARF (which is still vastly better than the older standards for debug info). > An incentive is needed that creates fruitful cooperation of > languages, if that is where long identifiers are a pain, and > a source of cumbersome, costly configuration. As I've understood it, the GNAT Ada/C++ linkage does *not* involve typing those long, mangled linker symbols into an Ada program as identifiers. GNAT understands the GNU C++ compiler well enough to hide them. -- Niklas Holsti Tidorum Ltd niklas holsti tidorum fi . @ .