This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: 3.2 PATCH: Fully support parallel gnat1/gnatbind builds
- From: Florian Weimer <fw at deneb dot enyo dot de>
- To: Joe Buck <Joe dot Buck at synopsys dot com>
- Cc: dewar at gnat dot com (Robert Dewar), kenner at vlsi1 dot ultra dot nyu dot edu, ro at TechFak dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE, zack at codesourcery dot com, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Sat, 25 May 2002 00:30:36 +0200
- Subject: Re: 3.2 PATCH: Fully support parallel gnat1/gnatbind builds
- References: <200205242225.PAA15060@atrus.synopsys.com>
Joe Buck <Joe.Buck@synopsys.com> writes:
> Please pardon my ignorance of Ada and Gnat in these comments.
> I wrote:
>> > The usual way to handle such things is with configure-time tests: does
>> > the existing Ada compiler support pragma Unreferenced?
> No, I am asking: does the Ada compiler existing on the user's
> system support the pragma? It may or may not.
Yes, such a configure test is the right approach.
> Well, C-like languages are properly attacked for misuse of the
> preprocessor, but it's great for solving problems like this.
AFAIK, you cannot use #pragmas in #defines, so even the C preprocessor
wouldn't be very helpful here.
>> Note that pragma Warnings is unnecessary if suitable command line
>> options are given, but there doesn't seem to be a way to force an
>> older GNAT version not to generate warnings for unrecognized pragmas
>> (which turn into errors in -gnatg mode).
> Maybe the alternative is to be able to decide at configure time whether
> to turn on -gnatg or not.
"-gnatg" enables the implementor's mode. In the default mode, GNAT
cannot compile predefined library units, as required by the standard.
> That way, users of older compilers could still build, but they would
> see unrecognized pragmas warnings.
I think a way to make warnings (and failed style checks) non-fatal
with -gnatg would be desirable as a last resort, so that we don't have
to worry much about such problems in the future.