Modern copy of GNAT for OpenVMS?

Modern copy of GNAT for OpenVMS?

[Zane H. Healy]

Is there a modern copy of GNAT for OpenVMS available for download anywhere? 
This is for Hobbyist use.  I've got 3.12p from '99, and would like 3.15p as
that's what I've got on Unix.

			Zane

Re: Modern copy of GNAT for OpenVMS?

[Vincent DIEMUNSCH]

I can't give an answer to your question, but I would like to rise another one,
related to it !

We have a major application coded in ADA under OpenVMS and running on
multiple VAX stations, and we would like to port it to PCs. Is there a way to
do that ?
Do we have to port it to Linux or is there a robust VMS system for PCs ?

Thanks in advance,

            Vincent




"Zane H. Healy" a �crit :

> Is there a modern copy of GNAT for OpenVMS available for download anywhere?
> This is for Hobbyist use.  I've got 3.12p from '99, and would like 3.15p as
> that's what I've got on Unix.
>
>                         Zane

Re: Modern copy of GNAT for OpenVMS?

[Stephen Leake]

Vincent DIEMUNSCH <"vincent.diemunsch"@edf.fr@NO.SPAM.PLEASE> writes:

> We have a major application coded in ADA

I suspect you mean Ada. It's a woman's name, not an acronym.

> under OpenVMS and running on multiple VAX stations, and we would
> like to port it to PCs.

What, precisely, do you mean by "PCs"? It used to mean "something
running Windows". Now it can mean "cheap, generic x86 hardware,
running some popular OS". But given the Macintosh, it can mean "cheap,
generic x86 or PowerPC hardware, running some popular OS".

> Is there a way to do that ? 

Yes. There are Ada compilers for lots of "PC" targets.

> Do we have to port it to Linux 

Or some other OS that runs on the target (Windows, Lynx, VxWorks,
Apple OS X, BSD, etc). 

> or is there a robust VMS system for PCs ?

I don't think VMS has been ported to anything other than VAX and
Alpha. Of course, there is "cheap, generic Alpha hardware" that runs
VMS; can you use that?

What windowing system does your application use (if you have a GUI)?
What OS services does it require? From your statement above, I can only
conclude that it needs networking. Does it use TCP/IP sockets, or some
VMS thing? Of course, given a modern processor, you might be able to
do everything in one processor, and get rid of the networking.

-- 
-- Stephe

Re: Modern copy of GNAT for OpenVMS?

[Larry Kilgallen]

In article <uu1hsa689.fsf@nasa.gov>, Stephen Leake <Stephen.A.Leake@nasa.gov> writes:

> I don't think VMS has been ported to anything other than VAX and
> Alpha. Of course, there is "cheap, generic Alpha hardware" that runs
> VMS; can you use that?

VMS is in the process of also being ported to Itanium, with the notion
that those Intel chips will be used in cheap generic systems (albeit
slower than Alpha at the start, but that should not concern someone
currently running on VAX).

> What windowing system does your application use (if you have a GUI)?
> What OS services does it require? From your statement above, I can only
> conclude that it needs networking. Does it use TCP/IP sockets, or some
> VMS thing? Of course, given a modern processor, you might be able to
> do everything in one processor, and get rid of the networking.

But a lot of VMS applications, and a lot of Ada applications, are
designed with reliability in mind.  For such settings it can be
dangerous to put all one's eggs in one system box.

Re: Modern copy of GNAT for OpenVMS?

[Larry Kilgallen]

In article <3DEF8BDB.7050009@acm.org>, Jeffrey Carter <jrcarter@acm.org> writes:
> Vincent DIEMUNSCH wrote:
>> 
>> We have a major application coded in ADA under OpenVMS and running on
>> multiple VAX stations, and we would like to port it to PCs. Is there a way to
>> do that ?
>> Do we have to port it to Linux or is there a robust VMS system for PCs ?
> 
> Most VAX/DEC/Compaq Ada code can be recompiled unchanged with GNAT, 
> which is available for Linux or Windows on PCs, as well as for VMS on 
> Alphas.

And in the future GNAT will be provided for VMS on Itanium.

Re: Modern copy of GNAT for OpenVMS?

[Jeffrey Carter]

Vincent DIEMUNSCH wrote:
> 
> We have a major application coded in ADA under OpenVMS and running on
> multiple VAX stations, and we would like to port it to PCs. Is there a way to
> do that ?
> Do we have to port it to Linux or is there a robust VMS system for PCs ?

Most VAX/DEC/Compaq Ada code can be recompiled unchanged with GNAT, 
which is available for Linux or Windows on PCs, as well as for VMS on 
Alphas.

-- 
Jeff Carter
"I blow my nose on you."
Monty Python & the Holy Grail

RE: Modern copy of GNAT for OpenVMS?

[Caldwell Ian]

>Most VAX/DEC/Compaq Ada code can be recompiled unchanged with GNAT, 
>which is available for Linux or Windows on PCs, as well as for VMS on 
>Alphas.

Unless it uses operating system routines other than by standard Ada
interfaces.

Ian Caldwell
Q218 
QinetiQ Malvern 
+ 44 (0) 1684 89 4461


The Information contained in this E-Mail and any subsequent correspondence
is private and is intended solely for the intended recipient(s).
For those other than the recipient any disclosure, copying, distribution,
or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on such information
is prohibited and may be unlawful.

Re: Modern copy of GNAT for OpenVMS?

[Marin David Condic]

Jeffrey Carter <jrcarter@acm.org> wrote in message
news:3DEF8BDB.7050009@acm.org...
>
> Most VAX/DEC/Compaq Ada code can be recompiled unchanged with GNAT,
> which is available for Linux or Windows on PCs, as well as for VMS on
> Alphas.
>
I have noted some slight differences in the past, but usually, portability
between DEC Ada and Gnat Ada was pretty good. The *real* problem is how
seriously hooked into the OS and other platform specific features is the
application at hand. The OP didn't say anything about that, and that's where
all the serious issues will lie.

I've ported code that did nothing beyond a command line interface & a bunch
of computations and had it compile/execute right out of the box. When I've
thrown in access to files of a non-text nature, I've had problems with byte
sex and other binary representation issues. (Yes, you can design for this,
but often portability is not an issue when the program is first built.) Once
the application starts getting into OS features like a GUI interface,
network services, etc., you can forget portability. At that point the amount
of trouble one will have depends on how well isolated the accesses to the OS
were built.

Aside: Wouldn't it be nice to have a *standard* way of getting at various
"normal" OS services like networking and a GUI? Vast amounts of software
these days take advantage of that sort of thing, but then must become bound
to the OS that provides it. Portability starts becoming a pipe dream.

MDC
--
======================================================================
Marin David Condic
I work for: http://www.belcan.com/
My project is: http://www.jast.mil/

Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g

    "I'd trade it all for just a little more"
        --  Charles Montgomery Burns, [4F10]
======================================================================

Re: Modern copy of GNAT for OpenVMS?

[Larry Kilgallen]

In article <asq6ar$2ul$1@slb6.atl.mindspring.net>, "Marin David Condic" <mcondic.auntie.spam@acm.org> writes:

> Aside: Wouldn't it be nice to have a *standard* way of getting at various
> "normal" OS services like networking and a GUI?

The problem is that what is "normal" for one operating system is not
at all "normal" for another.  Even the alleged DLM port to Tru64 is
quite different than the original on VMS.

Re: Modern copy of GNAT for OpenVMS?

[Frank J. Lhota]

"Marin David Condic" <mcondic.auntie.spam@acm.org> wrote in message
news:asq6ar$2ul$1@slb6.atl.mindspring.net...
> Aside: Wouldn't it be nice to have a *standard* way of getting at various
> "normal" OS services like networking and a GUI? Vast amounts of software
> these days take advantage of that sort of thing, but then must become
bound
> to the OS that provides it. Portability starts becoming a pipe dream.

You're absolutely right, especially about the lack of GUI standards. CLI
applications, for all their limitations, were portable. You could write a
"Hello, World!" application that compiles and runs on everything from a Cray
to an Atari. But let's say you want to write the GUI equivalent of "Hello,
World!". The X-Windows approach differs from the MS-Win approach which
differs from the Mac approach. What ever happened to the notion of
portability.

Fortunately, we finally have a portability layer for GUI development, in the
form of GTK API. I have become a fan of the GTK-Ada software. Eventually, I
hope to port the GTK libraries to ObjectAda.

Re: Modern copy of GNAT for OpenVMS?

[Tapani Rundgren]

It's sad, but there is no public version of Gnat 3.15p available
on OpenVMS. I still use the Gnat 3.12p. Will try to convince the
ACT people to help us on this issue.
Have asked that question couple of times. Would be nice to
include it in the OpenVMS Freeware CD (there is a lot of nice 
tools like Gtk, GPS coming, AWS etc. that could be made available
for OpenVMS users too).

Regards,
Tapani Rundgren

Re: Modern copy of GNAT for OpenVMS?

[Stephen Leake]

Rundgren.Tapani@telia.com (Tapani Rundgren) writes:

> It's sad, but there is no public version of Gnat 3.15p available
> on OpenVMS. I still use the Gnat 3.12p. Will try to convince the
> ACT people to help us on this issue.

No chance; they are busy with paying work (some of it mine :). Your
only choice is to learn how to compile GNAT from source. It really is
not hard.

But you have to compile 3.15 with 3.14, and 3.14 with 3.13, and 3.13
with 3.12. So you have some catching up to do. You have been saving
source versions of all of these, right ?

-- 
-- Stephe

Re: Modern copy of GNAT for OpenVMS?

[Larry Kilgallen]

In article <AU7I9.2811$Ec.1543@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>, "Frank J. Lhota" <NOSPAM.lhota.adarose@verizon.net> writes:
> "Marin David Condic" <mcondic.auntie.spam@acm.org> wrote in message
> news:asq6ar$2ul$1@slb6.atl.mindspring.net...
>> Aside: Wouldn't it be nice to have a *standard* way of getting at various
>> "normal" OS services like networking and a GUI? Vast amounts of software
>> these days take advantage of that sort of thing, but then must become
> bound
>> to the OS that provides it. Portability starts becoming a pipe dream.
> 
> You're absolutely right, especially about the lack of GUI standards. CLI
> applications, for all their limitations, were portable. You could write a
> "Hello, World!" application that compiles and runs on everything from a Cray
> to an Atari. But let's say you want to write the GUI equivalent of "Hello,
> World!". The X-Windows approach differs from the MS-Win approach which
> differs from the Mac approach. What ever happened to the notion of
> portability.

I disagree that CLI applications are portable.  There are plenty of
Unix-style applications that get ported to VMS and end up being just
that, an out-of-place application that honors none of the standards
of the operating system on which it is running.

There is no such thing as a free lunch.

Re: Modern copy of GNAT for OpenVMS?

[Marin David Condic]

Very true. It is a problem that OS's all have different ways of doing
things. In some ways, its "Innovation" and in other ways its a handicap.

Back in the olden days, you could count on your garden variety user-style OS
(as opposed to something embedded or otherwise specialized) providing you
with basically sequential, random and text IO with some version of a
teletype as your user interaction device. At that time, what Ada provided
was sufficient to accomplish portability across a multitude of platforms -
possibly excepting IBM mainframes where the terminals behaved dramatically
different and character sets were not compatible with the standard. Now
you've got a variety of windowing systems and networking systems and file
systems that may each have their own advantages, but it makes any sort of
portability difficult. You either fully utilize what is available to you or
you have to opt for the least common denominator - which may put you back at
a glass teletype and fairly primitive files - with maybe networking since
Sockets are fairly common - yet often with subtle differences.

So given that portability of user-style apps is pretty much impossible
without making the app very primitive, should we be so concerned about it?
Standardization is nice, but unachievable on some levels, so maybe it ought
not to be such an overwhelming concern for Ada. At least not where it might
involve big libraries of OS related things? (IOW, try to arrive at a common
subset of features, but allow divergence for different implementations.
Example: Make a root package for some subset of OS features and allow
implementations to make their own child packages for extended features with
the caveat being that if you use them, you are not portable.)

MDC
--
======================================================================
Marin David Condic
I work for: http://www.belcan.com/
My project is: http://www.jast.mil/

Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g

    "I'd trade it all for just a little more"
        --  Charles Montgomery Burns, [4F10]
======================================================================

Larry Kilgallen <Kilgallen@SpamCop.net> wrote in message
news:9yPmFNnjB6V5@eisner.encompasserve.org...
>
> The problem is that what is "normal" for one operating system is not
> at all "normal" for another.  Even the alleged DLM port to Tru64 is
> quite different than the original on VMS.

Re: Modern copy of GNAT for OpenVMS?

[Tapani Rundgren]

Stephen Leake <Stephen.A.Leake@nasa.gov> wrote in message news:<uvg263lxc.fsf@nasa.gov>...
> Rundgren.Tapani@telia.com (Tapani Rundgren) writes:
> 
> > It's sad, but there is no public version of Gnat 3.15p available
> > on OpenVMS. I still use the Gnat 3.12p. Will try to convince the
> > ACT people to help us on this issue.
> 
> No chance; they are busy with paying work (some of it mine :). Your
> only choice is to learn how to compile GNAT from source. It really is
> not hard.
> 
> But you have to compile 3.15 with 3.14, and 3.14 with 3.13, and 3.13
> with 3.12. So you have some catching up to do. You have been saving
> source versions of all of these, right ?

I have built Gnat since 3.12p on Linux number of times, very easy
thing to do. The problematic part is configuration for OpenVMS.
I do have the GNV anvironment, but haven't used it in that context.
In the past I saw that there was a DCL command procedure for this
(vmsconfigure.com or something like that).

Re: Modern copy of GNAT for OpenVMS?

[Marin David Condic]

Yeah, but there you're talking more about "convention" than lack of
portability. A CLI based Unix app may use things like "-Uxlaksdret" and a
VMS app may be more oriented to "/optimize=time/list=file.lis" and so forth.
But at least the app stands a reasonable chance of compiling and running out
of the box. (Sometimes you'll have differences in how command line
parameters come in when the program is executed, but the "Command/Response"
interaction of the app should be portable, right?)

Compare that scenario to anything that needs to rely on a GUI or perhaps
networking or a database and its got to look more portable. You get
something, but you give something up as well.

MDC
--
======================================================================
Marin David Condic
I work for: http://www.belcan.com/
My project is: http://www.jast.mil/

Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g

    "I'd trade it all for just a little more"
        --  Charles Montgomery Burns, [4F10]
======================================================================

Larry Kilgallen <Kilgallen@SpamCop.net> wrote in message
news:rwP$65EJL$ZL@eisner.encompasserve.org...
>
> I disagree that CLI applications are portable.  There are plenty of
> Unix-style applications that get ported to VMS and end up being just
> that, an out-of-place application that honors none of the standards
> of the operating system on which it is running.
>
> There is no such thing as a free lunch.