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: 103376,53d1d1eed63370ea X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) Subject: Re: compile on a pc to a sparc Date: 1996/07/12 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 168420873 references: <4rrivk$naf@cville-srv.wam.umd.edu> <4s0puh$52a@felix.seas.gwu.edu> organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-07-12T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Tarjei asks (of my moving from OS/2 to Win95, I wondered if anyone would pick up on that :-) Does this mean that there will be no more OS/2 releases of GNAT? It is important for me to know since I am planning to use that combination commercially. I am planning to buy a support contract for that work. There certainly will continue to be OS/2 releases, because if nothing else there are enthusiastic volunteers out there who will continue to build releases. There are many ports of GNAT that we (ACT) do not support. Note that I am not saying we won't continue to support OS/2, but right now that is a possibility. It depends on commercial interest as always. So Tarjei, and any other people interested in commercial support of OS/2, should definitely get in touch (send email to support@gnat.com). IBM has at this stage sent out very strong signals that they no longer regard OS/2 as a general purpose strategic operating system, but rather intend to concentrate in narrow vertical markets (which makes sense, this is where OS/2 has been successful). For example, they have no interest in whether general purpose software like GNAT is or is not made available for OS/2. Of course if they have a big customer who needs Ada on OS/2, then that would be different. We chose OS/2 as a primary platform for OS/2 in the early days when it was the only viable 32-bit operating system around. Now that is no longer true, and indeed if we were making the decision again today, four years later, I think it unlikely we would choose OS/2 with so many good alternatives (Linux, Win95, NT, Solaris, and indeed the current 32-bit DOS with DJGPP). In what way is OS/2 makefiles different from other makefiles. I have mainly compiled OS/2 ready software so I have not done any work on makefiles. OS/2 is not Unix! The standard makefiles for gcc assume Unix. You have two choices in such situations. First you can make the OS look exactly like Unix, or you can modify the makefile. In practice in OS/2, we do somewhere in between the two, so for example our makefile has OS/2 specific commands in it (like emxload), but also we have added Unixlike utilities to OS/2.