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=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,9b30240b5a381bbf
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-08-16 04:22:37 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!nycmny1-snh1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!newsfeed.mathworks.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!almiel.cbb-automation.DE!not-for-mail
From: Dmitry A.Kazakov <dmitry@elros.cbb-automation.de>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Ada 95 for an ARM-based bare board?
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 13:22:35 +0200
Message-ID: <fjhplukdn7qivdv4ber28qfmm8aifpis4c@4ax.com>
References: <rteplug7d1nqc7l9a0j3lsnujdtjfkhr8e@4ax.com>
 <3D5CC272.629E243@gmx.de>
NNTP-Posting-Host: almiel.cbb-automation.de (212.79.194.100)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1029496955 45565684 212.79.194.100 (16 [77047])
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:28092
Date: 2002-08-16T13:22:35+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Fri, 16 Aug 2002 11:14:26 +0200, Steffen Huber
<steffen.huber@gmx.de> wrote:

>"Dmitry A.Kazakov" wrote:
>> Is there any vendor?
>
>Not that I know of. However, as GCC can target ARM, it should be "easily"
>possible to build at least a cross compiler.

Well, building a cross GCC was relatively easy, last time I did it
(5-6 years ago (:-)). Even then one should:

1. build GNAT front-end
2. port its run-time to bare board

I don't feel myself ready for such an adventure. In any case our
customer will not pay for that. Believe me, it was hard enough even to
convince the customer to consider Ada as an option.

>If you have something like that, please tell me about it ;-)
>
>I am currently still developing software for an ancient operating
>system called "RISC OS", and I use an equally ancient port of GNAT
>(version 3.03!). I would need a modern GNAT quite soon (based on
>GCC 3.1 if possible, because this is the only version ported to
>RISC OS) that generates code suitable for the later ARM processor
>modes (the 32bit ones - the 3.03 port I use generates code for
>the old 26bit modes). Unfortunately, I have not yet the skills
>to do a port on my own...

Anyway, if GNAT is an option, then I would turn to GNAT Pro, to have
ACT support. The current public version of GNAT (3.14p) has bugs in
the essential for our design parts of tasking.

--
Regards,
Dmitry Kazakov
www.dmitry-kazakov.de