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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00
	autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Path: 
 eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!mx02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Simon Clubley <clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Current status of Ada development for an Android target ?
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 13:11:08 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID: <njrk5c$8k8$3@dont-email.me>
References: <njhc2d$fhk$1@dont-email.me>
 <5d3adc89-b754-42d7-b6d0-953ceaeb5e28@googlegroups.com>
 <njpj0f$2c2$1@dont-email.me>
 <6cd28cd3-8444-4040-8702-68fcf509ad03@googlegroups.com>
Injection-Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 13:11:08 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: mx02.eternal-september.org;
 posting-host="5ec22929470afe0f2e8dd8846980e36b";
	logging-data="8840"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";
	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19yia0FLs+Vcz9gPsrghfUqslGrAf7O7wQ="
User-Agent: slrn/0.9.8.1 (VMS/Multinet)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:vVDbifoRYPr2qnGPZw/ZufyA9Vs=
Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:30746
Date: 2016-06-15T13:11:08+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 2016-06-15, jrmarino <dragonlace.cla@marino.st> wrote:
>
> I'm guessing it's not "would have" but rather "in order to avoid this
> transfer step which may have to be performed many times in a try-check-correct
> dev cycle, it would be easier to move to FreeBSD".
>

Yes, that's basically it.

> By the way, did you realize FreeBSD and DragonFly has the most current and
> extensive Ada support of all the FOSS platforms?  Developing Ada on one of
> those isn't a bad thing.
>

No I didn't. Looking at FreeBSD is on the list of things to do in the
future in case the Linux developers completely lose the plot, but I have
not got round to it yet.

>> Luke's observation about the general move to LLVM is also a good one
>> and I wonder what that is going to mean in, say, a couple of years time.
>
> pipe dream.  We've been talking about this for six years already.  I did some work on it but stopped when I realized the payoff vs work imbalance plus the real motivation for it (which was primarily license, not tech, at the time).  Don't want for this; it's not happening.
>

That wasn't what I was thinking.

At the moment, efforts like yours and Luke's are possible because someone
has added the basic backend support for the target to the existing gcc
toolchain.

Given the move to LLVM in some areas, what if new and potentially very
interesting targets come online over the next few years but people skip
directly to using LLVM for these targets and they never bother adding
the backend support to gcc ?

Simon.

-- 
Simon Clubley, clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP
Microsoft: Bringing you 1980s technology to a 21st century world