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: 103376,6e10dbd84b94a267 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: gauthier@unilim.fr (Michel Gauthier) Subject: Re: GNAT Compilation Problems Date: 1996/10/11 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 188725125 references: <51u63c$80c@netty.york.ac.uk> organization: Universite de Limoges newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-10-11T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article , dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) wrote: >> Gandalf said >> >> "While Robert is correct that gnatinfo.txt has some great information, >> the command lines for compilation using gnat for DO$ 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 ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------