JEWL on XP?

JEWL on XP?

[Mike H]

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

Re: JEWL on XP?

[Jeffrey R. Carter]

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

Re: JEWL on XP?

[Mike H]

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

Re: JEWL on XP?

[John McCormick]

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

pragma Linker_Options (was: JEWL on XP?)

[Georg Bauhaus]

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?

Re: pragma Linker_Options (was: JEWL on XP?)

[Randy Brukardt]

"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.