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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,6a9844368dd0a842 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) Subject: Re: seperate keyword and seperate compilation with Gnat? Date: 1996/07/03 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 163736340 references: <31D95D93.28D8D15B@jinx.sckans.edu> <4rckva$dj1@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM> organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-07-03T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Jon says "So, these bits seem to indicate that GNAT is playing a little loose with the rules. But -" Nope, not true! You are making a fundamental assumption that is wrong, namely that compilation as defined in the RM corresponds to compilation with the default options using gcc. No one told you this -- you just assumed it :-) If you want to get formal, the compilation process in the RM corresponds to compiling with the -gnatc switch, then the post-compilation step can be done with gnatmake. In fact we use exactly this approach for some of the complex multi-file tests in the ACVC suite. So you can discuss if you like the pragmatic implications of the GNAT approach, as Bob and I have already done, but don't spend time trying to see if the RM allows a compiler to require that subunits be present when the parent unit is compiled, it definitely does NOT, but neither does GNAT, when you use the proper compilation approach.