This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Ada files now checked in
Zack Weinberg <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> On Fri, Oct 05, 2001 at 04:59:32PM -0400, Geert Bosch wrote:
>> Also, if it will result in a significant simplification of the build
>> process, it may be worth rewriting these tools in C.
>> I don't think that is necessary. It would be easy enough to add the
>> few lines to the make file to build these extremely simple utilities.
>> A gnat executable is needed anyway.
> I thought Richard said they needed a lot more of the Ada standard
> library than gnat1 itself did?
This does not matter in some cases. I think we are dealing with quite
different scenarios at the same time:
o Recent GNAT binaries are publicly available (GNU/Linux, FreeBSD,
Solaris, Win32, to list a few platforms). Almost any approach
will work. (Are the GNU libc 2.2/gcc 2.8.1 incompatibilities so
severe?) We have too separate cases here:
- gcc is Ada-enabled
- gcc is not, but gnatgcc/adagcc
o No recent binaries are publicly available, but the platform is
supported by ACT (HP-UX, IRIX, and a few more). Perhaps ACT would
rather like to provide a minimal set of binaries instead of a full
o GCC backend does exist, but no GNAT binaries. A cross-compiler is
necessary, but not a complete development chain. It is usually
sufficient to copy the assembler files generated from the Ada
source code to the target machine and proceed from there.
I think the GNAT build process should be tailored to the first case
(and both sub-cases). The second case is only relevant during a
transition period, and all the proposals discussed so far do note make
the third case easier.