This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: gnatbind (was DATA_ALIGNMENT vs. DECL_USER_ALIGNMENT)
- From: Laurent Guerby <guerby at acm dot org>
- To: Robert Dewar <dewar at gnat dot com>
- Cc: "gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>,Richard Kenner <kenner at vlsi1 dot ultra dot nyu dot edu>, rth at redhat dot com
- Date: 11 Apr 2003 23:56:50 +0200
- Subject: Re: gnatbind (was DATA_ALIGNMENT vs. DECL_USER_ALIGNMENT)
- References: <20030411213726.75019F2D76@nile.gnat.com>
On Fri, 2003-04-11 at 23:37, Robert Dewar wrote:
> > So there's no specific reason to have -C in ada/Makefile.in,
> > I'll look into removing it at some point.
> Don't you think that in the context of gcc, it is more convenient to have
> the main program in C than in Ada?
I don't think it makes much of a difference, with -C gnat1 backtrace
should look like this C(main)/Ada/Ada/.../C(gigi)/C(backend)/C...
without it, it will look like Ada(main)/Ada/Ada/.../C(gigi)/C(backend)/C...
Since gnatbind now defaults to Ada (without arguments), I was looking if there
was a real reason behind in using -C, in that
case additional comments in ada/Makefile.in indicating why would have
been needed (if one follows some reasonable coding standard).
So instead of adding comments indicating that -C is an accident of history
and is not currently needed, I believe it's better to remove it
Quite unimportant anyway. Any news on the GNAT CVS repository front?
Laurent Guerby <guerby at acm dot org>