This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Ada files now checked in
- To: dewar at gnat dot com, zack at codesourcery dot com
- Subject: Re: Ada files now checked in
- From: dewar at gnat dot com
- Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2001 12:58:46 -0400 (EDT)
- Cc: bosch at gnat dot com, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, kenner at vlsi1 dot ultra dot nyu dot edu
<<What, you want to keep the Ada tools around as well as the C or Perl
ones? That would be silly. We only need one version.
See previous message, I potentially agree for C, but disagree for Perl, we
don't want to intodruce another language into our build environment at
ACT just for this purpose, especially if it is Perl :-)
<<I'm now wondering how much additional trouble it would be to require
the presence of the basic Ada runtime library as well as a bootstrap
compiler. That would not only make it easy to generate these tools,
it would permit us to separate the construction of the compiler from
the construction of the runtime. I think this would make it easier to
maintain both in the long run. The only real disadvantage is that you
wind up with a compiler binary linked against the previous version of
the runtime, but this is not a huge problem, and one can always relink
the binaries afterward.
I don't see this as simplifying, having two copies of runtime libraries
(a basic one, and not so basic if it has to build these tools), and the
full one, and making sure that compatible libraries are around for the
pre-bootstrap environment seems to complicate things to me. But let's
see what others think.