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=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Received: by 10.66.159.134 with SMTP id xc6mr4627858pab.45.1413531516084; Fri, 17 Oct 2014 00:38:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.140.95.135 with SMTP id i7mr1058qge.27.1413531515796; Fri, 17 Oct 2014 00:38:35 -0700 (PDT) Path: border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!uq10no12295383igb.0!news-out.google.com!i10ni93qaf.0!nntp.google.com!s7no3316685qap.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2014 00:38:35 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1703052331435164910.517977laguest-archeia.com@nntp.aioe.org> Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=2a01:e35:2e83:a840:3c75:3917:dfd:111; posting-account=1nYVVQoAAABW-aBHLMoPtu2ntyNcE_gB NNTP-Posting-Host: 2a01:e35:2e83:a840:3c75:3917:dfd:111 References: <851998451435030340.491778laguest-archeia.com@nntp.aioe.org> <9Xq%v.417458$b_1.179403@fx10.fr7> <54032b68-915c-4556-9bfd-945c81f2d316@googlegroups.com> <1703052331435164910.517977laguest-archeia.com@nntp.aioe.org> User-Agent: G2/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: Subject: Re: GNAT with LLVM -> Java Script From: duncan.sands@deepbluecap.com Injection-Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2014 07:38:35 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Xref: number.nntp.giganews.com comp.lang.ada:189848 Date: 2014-10-17T00:38:35-07:00 List-Id: Hi, > > That was the DragonEgg project, wasn't it? I got the impression it=20 >=20 > > foundered on some shortcoming of LLVM for non-C languages; not certain= =20 >=20 > > which, but possibly the one regarding nested functions that Tristan has= =20 >=20 > > overcome with ghdl. no, there were no blocking technical problems. For example I got nested fu= nction support working properly a gazillion years ago, as Luke says. Excep= tion handling took longer to be completely reliable, but that was also reso= lved years ago too. In both cases changes needed to be made to LLVM, but t= hose changes are all old hat now. All that happened is that I lost interes= t in the project and no-one stepped forward to take it over. That means th= at it's been quietly bit rotting for a while now. For example: to accommod= ate internal changes in gcc-4.7 and later, dragonegg's ABI support needs to= be rewritten, but I'd already lost interest in the project so never did it= , which means that while it still mostly sorta works, thanks to some hacks,= the plugin easily crashes on Ada tagged types starting from this gcc versi= on. Ciao, Duncan. >=20 >=20 >=20 > No, DragonEgg was the plugin that followed, think that's dead also. >=20 >=20 >=20 > But you're right, the nested function thing was a problem but I'm certain >=20 > Duncan said he was working will llvm way back to sort it out. Don't know >=20 > how far it got. >=20 >=20 >=20 > Luke