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=2.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_MUA_MOZILLA, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: a07f3367d7,163994d4f34e92d0 X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Received: by 10.180.107.167 with SMTP id hd7mr296837wib.0.1343910207128; Thu, 02 Aug 2012 05:23:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.224.180.205 with SMTP id bv13mr14315445qab.8.1343910199651; Thu, 02 Aug 2012 05:23:19 -0700 (PDT) X-FeedAbuse: http://nntpfeed.proxad.net/abuse.pl feeded by 88.191.116.97 Path: n2ni4546127win.0!nntp.google.com!7no4031598wig.0!news-out.google.com!a15ni8267430qag.0!nntp.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.ams.giganews.com!border4.nntp.ams.giganews.com!border2.nntp.ams.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!goblin3!goblin.stu.neva.ru!news.matabio.net!jeffrey.matabio.net!thue.elzevir.fr!nntpfeed.proxad.net!dedibox.gegeweb.org!gegeweb.eu!usenet.pasdenom.info!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Nasser M. Abbasi" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: how to tell gnatmake to send executables to a different directory when compiling multi source? Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2012 22:01:11 -0500 Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server Message-ID: References: <214bbd15-f7cb-4710-a6a7-64f37923bf4e@googlegroups.com> <87wr1moexq.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org> <87sjcaoa08.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org> Reply-To: nma@12000.org NNTP-Posting-Host: 9ii5QNw33OfeoTzEH8w9ug.user.speranza.aioe.org Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120713 Thunderbird/14.0 X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: 2012-07-29T22:01:11-05:00 List-Id: On 7/29/2012 7:20 PM, Vasiliy Molostov wrote: > > I doubt. I prefer makefiles in any kind, just because its widely used in > unices, where most open-source software lives. Difficulty rises when > someone comes with its own interface and tools, this makes things less > compatible against environment. It is just an opinion, but I sure here is > nothing devil or just anti-devil. > I had the same discussion in comp.lang.java sometime ago. Over there, everyone would scream at me for not using Ant to build Java projects, and I was using a Makefile. Here, people will scream at me for not using GPR for building Ada projects. I see Make as the lowest common denominator. Unless GPRBUILD can be used to build both Ada, Java, C, C++, etc.. and can be used also to invoke latex to update my pdf files and HTML web pages when my .tex files changes, and I can use it to do my backups and all the other tasks I use Make for, then I do not see something better as a general tool. Javac (the Java compiler) actually works like gnatnmake in many ways. i.e. doing javac -classpath ... *.java (can be done from inside Makefile) then javac knows which other files it needs to compile so that the build is consistent and complete. i.e. one does not need to tell it which java file depends on which other. Javac knows from the import statements and using the classpath it can determine which java files to build. Same with gnatmake, I can just write gnatmake -I ... *.adb from inside Makefile and that is all. It knows what files to compile as needed. Only problem was when it comes to sending the object files and the .exe to different places during the build. Ada is more complicated and has more intermediate files generated. If one does not mind keeping all files generated in the same folder as the sources, then the above is all what is needed for a basic Ada project build. --Nasser