Re: GNAT Compilation Problems

[gauthier@unilim.fr (Michel Gauthier)]

In article <dewar.844905925@merv>, dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) wrote:

>>  Gandalf said
>>  
>>  "While Robert is correct that gnatinfo.txt has some great information,
>>  the command lines for compilation using gnat for DO$ is
>>  
>>  gcc -c 'your_file_name_goes_here'
>>  "
>>  This is very bad advice, as you will find out from reading gnatinfo.txt,
>>  the proper way to compile programs using GNAT from the DOS prompt or 
>>  anywhere else is to use gnatmake. There is very seldom a reason for typing
>>  in a gcc command.

Why ? "gcc" and "gnatmake" are suitable for different cases.

If your intent is to check that a component is entirely up to date
(including bodies), use "gnatmake". If you have only to check
the legality and consistency of one component, then "gnatmake" has
the harmful side-effect of attempting at compiling bodies, and "gcc"
is better.

So, I assert that "gcc" is more often the good choice than "gnatmake".

----------          ----------          ----------          ---------- 
Michel Gauthier / Laboratoire d'informatique
123 avenue Albert Thomas / F-87060 Limoges
telephone +33 () 55457335 [or ~ 7232]
    a partir du 19 octobre, depuis la France  : 05 55 45 73 35 
     from october,19 on, and from abroad : +33 5 55 45 73 35
fax +33 ()  55457315  [or ~7201]  
    and similar evolution
----------          ----------          ----------          ----------
Si l'an 2000 est pour vous un mysticisme stupide, utilisez la base 9
If you feel year 2000 a stupid mystic craze, use numeration base 9
----------          ----------          ----------          ----------