Re: Suggestion for gnatstub

[Simon Wright <simon@pushface.org>]

"Marin David Condic" <mcondic.auntie.spam@acm.org> writes:

> Actually, I dislike gnatstub because it doesn't generate null
> functions. I often want the stubs to be executable so I can test
> higher level code and do iterative builds. ("O.K. I got *this*
> function working right, now lets go build the next one..." Saves on
> having to build test harnesses.) I'd imagine it would be fairly
> straightforward to include an option that let the user select the
> desired behavior - raise exceptions or generate working code.

My ColdFrame framework generator goes to a lot of trouble to generate
compilable subprograms that raise Program_Error if executed. I think
there is one case where this doesn't work (functions returning a value
of an imported type, eg GNAT.Socket_Type, that turns out to be
private).