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!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Simon Clubley Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: DragonEgg has been revived Date: Fri, 25 May 2018 13:16:54 -0000 (UTC) Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Message-ID: References: <5c2523c1-9ea5-453c-b80e-9cb0dcd16de0@googlegroups.com> <293cf892-1320-49e6-a25f-a36ea098cd34@googlegroups.com> <294fa0cd-ec72-4f0f-8065-0a3d5e1087fa@googlegroups.com> <1048844682.548900254.621065.laguest-archeia.com@nntp.aioe.org> Injection-Date: Fri, 25 May 2018 13:16:54 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: h2725194.stratoserver.net; posting-host="6538eda9bc09d185cebf19267a2f9175"; logging-data="21048"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/6vGXcktPa18I1OvrqZhwqOlObV73DtmI=" User-Agent: slrn/0.9.8.1 (VMS/Multinet) Cancel-Lock: sha1:kuWvLxrE0UGZsE7uR2T2TBOQ2/g= Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:52671 Date: 2018-05-25T13:16:54+00:00 List-Id: On 2018-05-24, Luke A Guest wrote: > Chris M Moore wrote: > >> >> I mean who uses "overtly clearly"? >> > > It?s like reading posts from a spambot, isn?t it? My eyes glaze and I just > tl;rcfbb I think I prefer the Sky59 person. (And no, that's not an invitation for him to start posting again.) Since my name is getting thrown around without context, let me make it clear where my concerns are. I don't care if the compiler itself is GPL. I _do_ care if the RTS or anything else is GPL (or even LGPL) and as a result there are constraints imposed on my binaries or source code when I use the compiler. I want to be able to compile programs using the compiler without having to do anything else other than ship the binary for my program. This is why I talk about generated code and not the compiler. The FSF runtime exception is fine for me. I would like to be able to use Ada in all the places I can currently use C and C++ code, including bare metal targets. If I start using Ada in those places, I would be like to sure that I can still build Ada code for those targets in 2-5 years using the current toolchains of the day, just like I can with C and C++ code. It would be nice if it was as easy to port a compiler toolchain to a new OS or architecture as it is to port a RTOS to a new target. This would be one answer to the lack of targets for an Ada compiler. For those of you who have not done RTOS based development, an RTOS is typically very cleanly divided internally into libraries of generic code and target specific low level Board Support Packages (BSP) that implement the required functionality for a specific piece of hardware. All that it typically takes to port to a new piece of hardware is to write a new BSP and the interface from the BSP to the rest of the RTOS is typically very clean and well documented. It would be nice if an Ada compiler was also that clean internally and as well documented so that you could easily port it to a new OS or environment yourself if you needed. Simon. -- Simon Clubley, clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP Microsoft: Bringing you 1980s technology to a 21st century world