compile on a pc to a sparc

compile on a pc to a sparc

[Eric Anthony Spear]

I'm successfully using Gnat on my OS/2 Pentium system at home.  However, 
I'd like to run my finished ada program on my sparc at work (it's much 
faster).  Rather than having to remake the compiler at work, I'd like to 
recompile on my Pentium so that the result is an executable that will run 
on the Sparc architecture.

Can this be done?

Re: compile on a pc to a sparc

[Robert Dewar]

Eric says

"I'm successfully using Gnat on my OS/2 Pentium system at home.  However,
I'd like to run my finished ada program on my sparc at work (it's much
faster).  Rather than having to remake the compiler at work, I'd like to
recompile on my Pentium so that the result is an executable that will run
on the Sparc architecture.

Can this be done?"

In theory yes, in practice, building cross-compilers from OS/2 is pretty
tricky, since OS/2 is enough non-Unix like to make it difficult to use
the normal make files and procedures, but if you know what you are doing
with GCC, and you know OS/2 well, you can probably succeed. It would
be an easier task to build a Linux to Solaris cross-port.

Incidentally, I am not sure what you mean by "remake the compiler".
Installable binary ports are available for both SunOS and Solaris.

Re: compile on a pc to a sparc

[Michael Feldman]

In article <4rrivk$naf@cville-srv.wam.umd.edu>,
Eric Anthony Spear <spear@wam.umd.edu> wrote:
>I'm successfully using Gnat on my OS/2 Pentium system at home.  However, 
>I'd like to run my finished ada program on my sparc at work (it's much 
>faster).  Rather than having to remake the compiler at work, I'd like to 
>recompile on my Pentium so that the result is an executable that will run 
>on the Sparc architecture.

Sparc = Solaris?
>
>Can this be done?
>
You can build a cross-compiler on your OS/2 box if you wish, but this
takes a large amount of disk/time resources and a fair amount of
knowledge. If you've never done it, it will eat up much more of your
time than getting a compiler on the SPARC will.

Why not just ftp the SPARC binaries and install on the SPARC?
There's nothing to "make" - the binaries install in a few minutes.
If you have enough disk space, you can put it in your own directory if
getting the computer center to install it is a hassle.

OTOH, if they are already supporting GNU stuff, why not just ask them to
install GNAT publicly? It's just a few minutes of their time, and then
other UMd folks can use it too!

Mike Feldman

Re: compile on a pc to a sparc

[Robert Dewar]

iMike said

"You can build a cross-compiler on your OS/2 box if you wish, but this
takes a large amount of disk/time resources and a fair amount of
knowledge. If you've never done it, it will eat up much more of your
time than getting a compiler on the SPARC will."

I want to emphasize that building cross-compilers on OS/2 is
especially difficult, since OS/2 does not work with the regular
gcc makefiles. Undoubtedly if you know what you are doing you can
get these makefiles etc to work, but the standard EMX distribution
is not intended for building cross compilers (for one thing it
routinely deletes all foreign architecture configuration files).

Re: compile on a pc to a sparc

[Robert Dewar]

Mike said

"You can build a cross-compiler on your OS/2 box if you wish, but this
takes a large amount of disk/time resources and a fair amount of
knowledge. If you've never done it, it will eat up much more of your
time than getting a compiler on the SPARC will."

And I noted the difficulties that come from the non-standard makefiles
in OS/2. That is one of many reasons that I am personally switching
from OS/2 to Win95, it will be much easier for me to be in a more
standard environment gcc-wise.

Re: compile on a pc to a sparc

[Tarjei Jensen]

> Robert Dewar writes:
>
>   And I noted the difficulties that come from the non-standard makefiles
>   in OS/2. That is one of many reasons that I am personally switching
>   from OS/2 to Win95, it will be much easier for me to be in a more
>   standard environment gcc-wise.

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.

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.


Greetings,
--
// Tarjei T. Jensen 
//    tarjeij@ulrik.uio.no || fax +47 51664292  || voice +47 51 85 87 39
//   Support you local rescue centre: GET LOST!
// Working, but not speaking for the Norwegian Hydrographic Service.

Re: compile on a pc to a sparc

[Robert Dewar]

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.

Re: compile on a pc to a sparc

[Ralph Paul]

dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) writes:

> And I noted the difficulties that come from the non-standard makefiles
> in OS/2. That is one of many reasons that I am personally switching
> from OS/2 to Win95, it will be much easier for me to be in a more
> standard environment gcc-wise.
> 

- What does that mean for the OS/2 support Robert ?

- Could you describe why Win95 should make life easier for you ?



Thanks,

Ralph Paul

	paul@aem.umn.edu
or	ralph@ifr.luftahrt.uni-stuttgart.de

Re: compile on a pc to a sparc

[Robert Dewar]

- What does that mean for the OS/2 support Robert ?

    I have already posted the answer to this

- Could you describe why Win95 should make life easier for you ?

    This is not really the place for OS discussions, but in short, I prefer
    to be a standard user, and not spend time scrambling after drivers etc.
    and, more importantly, more Ada users by far are interested in the NT
    and Win95 versions so it is important to have someone at ACT using this
    version as a mainstream development version, while far fewer people are
    using the OS/2 version. And finally, Win95 looks pretty nice to me!

Re: compile on a pc to a sparc

[Ralph Paul]

dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) writes:

> 
> - What does that mean for the OS/2 support Robert ?
> 
>     I have already posted the answer to this
You mean your posts a couple months back ?
If so then this is good bye OS/2 support. Good luck with Win95.

> 
> - Could you describe why Win95 should make life easier for you ?
> 
>     This is not really the place for OS discussions, but in short, I prefer
>     to be a standard user, and not spend time scrambling after drivers etc.
>     and, more importantly, more Ada users by far are interested in the NT
>     and Win95 versions so it is important to have someone at ACT using this
>     version as a mainstream development version, while far fewer people are
>     using the OS/2 version. And finally, Win95 looks pretty nice to me!

I didn't want to start an OS war or anything, that's more for *.advocacy
groups (;-). After all you need to make some money for a living.

As I am not familiar with the Win95/NT gcc, I am wondering why
the cygnus port make it easier for you since the "drive ( "C:\" )" stuff
is still in those OS's.

If you could tell us some of the differences, maybe then we could try to
straighten them out for future GNAT versions.


Thanks,


Ralph Paul

	paul@aem.umn.edu
or	ralph@ifr.luftahrt.uni-stuttgart.de