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=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,fd9a8f91bb89a8d2
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-11-18 08:06:55 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!xmission!hammer.uoregon.edu!skates!not-for-mail
From: Stephen Leake <Stephe.Leake@nasa.gov>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Is it possible to build an Ada cross-compiler for an 8-bit
 embedded target now that gcc 3.X has support for Ada?
Date: 18 Nov 2003 11:03:57 -0500
Organization: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center (skates.gsfc.nasa.gov)
Message-ID: <uptfp3bpu.fsf@nasa.gov>
References: <zgRsb.200$co2.10332@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au>
 <vrih63aerng37f@corp.supernews.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: shevek.gsfc.nasa.gov
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: skates.gsfc.nasa.gov 1069171695 25089 128.183.235.101 (18 Nov 2003
 16:08:15 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@news.gsfc.nasa.gov
NNTP-Posting-Date: 18 Nov 2003 16:08:15 GMT
User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:2628
Date: 2003-11-18T16:08:15+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com> writes:

> "Peter Milliken" <peterm@resmed.com.au> wrote in message
> news:zgRsb.200$co2.10332@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...
> >
> > Now that you can build an Ada compiler using gcc 3.X (well,
> > according to the build instructions of gcc 3.x :-)), I began to
> > wonder whether it was possible to build a cross-compiler for an
> > 8-bit target processor. The 8-bit processor family in question is
> > already supported by gcc (I believe).
> >
> > When I say "possible", I just mean "follow the cross-compiling
> > instructions and out pops an Ada compiler" - I don't mean, "spend
> > months of work patching various files and then you might have an
> > Ada compiler" :-)
> 
> To not answer your actual question at all, but...
> 
> As someone else pointed out, the biggest cost/overhead is porting the
> runtime libraries. 

Note that the "no runtime" subset of Ada is still a _far_ better
language than C. So it is worth persuing, since you already have the
code-generation part in the gcc back end. The result won't be "Ada",
but it will be a very useful subset.

GNAT provides a "pragma No_Runtime", which reports errors for any code
that would use the runtime, so you can tell when you need to change
the code.

-- 
-- Stephe