* JEWL on XP?
@ 2008-11-09 23:32 Mike H
2008-11-10 1:50 ` Jeffrey R. Carter
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Mike H @ 2008-11-09 23:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
I need to produce a quick and dirty demonstration.
From a quick scan of the documentation, JEWL would appear to provide all
I need. However certain parts of that same documentation lead to the
question, will JEWL run on XP? And if not, is there anything else that
might serve?
--
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
Mike
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: JEWL on XP?
2008-11-09 23:32 JEWL on XP? Mike H
@ 2008-11-10 1:50 ` Jeffrey R. Carter
2008-11-10 8:52 ` Mike H
2008-11-10 10:07 ` pragma Linker_Options (was: JEWL on XP?) Georg Bauhaus
0 siblings, 2 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Jeffrey R. Carter @ 2008-11-10 1:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
Mike H wrote:
>
> From a quick scan of the documentation, JEWL would appear to provide
> all I need. However certain parts of that same documentation lead to the
> question, will JEWL run on XP? And if not, is there anything else that
> might serve?
JEWL runs fine on XP.
Depending on your compiler, you may need to convert the single "pragma
Linker_Options" into multiple, one for each item in the single one.
--
Jeff Carter
"My mind is a raging torrent, flooded with rivulets of
thought, cascading into a waterfall of creative alternatives."
Blazing Saddles
89
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: JEWL on XP?
2008-11-10 1:50 ` Jeffrey R. Carter
@ 2008-11-10 8:52 ` Mike H
2008-11-10 14:32 ` John McCormick
2008-11-10 10:07 ` pragma Linker_Options (was: JEWL on XP?) Georg Bauhaus
1 sibling, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Mike H @ 2008-11-10 8:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
In message <5sMRk.427973$yE1.118321@attbi_s21>, Jeffrey R. Carter
<spam.jrcarter.not@spam.acm.org> writes
>JEWL runs fine on XP.
>
>Depending on your compiler, you may need to convert the single "pragma
>Linker_Options" into multiple, one for each item in the single one.
>
Many thanks, the compiler is GNAT. It is voluntary work but any clean
and polished version will have to pass the UK Railway Inspectorate!
See sig. file below.
--
Mike Hopkins
WHR <http://www.welshhighlandrailway.net/>
Project Rheilffordd Eryri
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* pragma Linker_Options (was: JEWL on XP?)
2008-11-10 1:50 ` Jeffrey R. Carter
2008-11-10 8:52 ` Mike H
@ 2008-11-10 10:07 ` Georg Bauhaus
2008-11-11 1:14 ` Randy Brukardt
1 sibling, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Georg Bauhaus @ 2008-11-10 10:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
Jeffrey R. Carter schrieb:
> Depending on your compiler, you may need to convert the single "pragma
> Linker_Options" into multiple, one for each item in the single one.
So, pragma Linker_Options can be troublesome in case one
cannot change the Ada source files. (Because whenever
a compilation system interprets the string_expression of the
pragma and the linker does not understand the string,
compilation fails.) Wouldn't it be better, in general,
to avoid system dependent pragma Linker_options in source
files?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: JEWL on XP?
2008-11-10 8:52 ` Mike H
@ 2008-11-10 14:32 ` John McCormick
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: John McCormick @ 2008-11-10 14:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
Here are the details of the changes I give to my students to run JEWL
on XP
In file
jewl-win32_interface.adb
replace
pragma Linker_Options ("-luser32 -lgdi32 -lcomdlg32 -lwinmm");
with
pragma Linker_Options ("-luser32");
pragma Linker_Options ("-lgdi32");
pragma Linker_Options ("-lcomdlg32");
pragma Linker_Options ("-lwinmm");
Build the JEWL library as described in the JEWL documentation.
John
On Nov 10, 2:52 am, Mike H <newsrea...@ada-
augusta.demon.co.uk.INVALID> wrote:
> In message <5sMRk.427973$yE1.118321@attbi_s21>, Jeffrey R. Carter
> <spam.jrcarter....@spam.acm.org> writes>JEWL runs fine on XP.
>
> >Depending on your compiler, you may need to convert the single "pragma
> >Linker_Options" into multiple, one for each item in the single one.
>
> Many thanks, the compiler is GNAT. It is voluntary work but any clean
> and polished version will have to pass the UK Railway Inspectorate!
>
> See sig. file below.
>
> --
> Mike Hopkins
> WHR <http://www.welshhighlandrailway.net/>
> Project Rheilffordd Eryri
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: pragma Linker_Options (was: JEWL on XP?)
2008-11-10 10:07 ` pragma Linker_Options (was: JEWL on XP?) Georg Bauhaus
@ 2008-11-11 1:14 ` Randy Brukardt
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Randy Brukardt @ 2008-11-11 1:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
"Georg Bauhaus" <rm.dash-bauhaus@futureapps.de> wrote in message
news:491807ee$0$31337$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net...
> Jeffrey R. Carter schrieb:
>
>> Depending on your compiler, you may need to convert the single "pragma
>> Linker_Options" into multiple, one for each item in the single one.
>
> So, pragma Linker_Options can be troublesome in case one
> cannot change the Ada source files. (Because whenever
> a compilation system interprets the string_expression of the
> pragma and the linker does not understand the string,
> compilation fails.) Wouldn't it be better, in general,
> to avoid system dependent pragma Linker_options in source
> files?
Well, maybe, but then you potentially lose version control on the options.
And you might not have control over the building environment, but still need
the options given.
For instance, in Claw, we have a package with separate bodies for each
compiler. Some of those bodies contain one or more Linker_Option pragmas. If
they're not given, Claw won't work (usually with a completely mysterious
error message). We don't provide build scripts with Claw (the various
compilers have fine mechanisms for that, we don't need to duplicate that).
So pragma Linker_Options is the only way to ensure that the correct options
are used.
I'd expect issues like these to arise for any "binding" packages that are
distributed separately (assuming that you need facilities beyond those
provided with the core OS). Similar reasons arise as to why you might want
to use configuration pragmas rather than compiler options to suppress checks
and the like.
Randy.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2008-11-11 1:14 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2008-11-09 23:32 JEWL on XP? Mike H
2008-11-10 1:50 ` Jeffrey R. Carter
2008-11-10 8:52 ` Mike H
2008-11-10 14:32 ` John McCormick
2008-11-10 10:07 ` pragma Linker_Options (was: JEWL on XP?) Georg Bauhaus
2008-11-11 1:14 ` Randy Brukardt
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox