[Ada] Fix 32/64bit mistake on SYSTEM_INFO component in s-win32

[Ada] Fix 32/64bit mistake on SYSTEM_INFO component in s-win32

[Pierre-Marie de Rodat]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 733 bytes --]

The dwActiveProcessorMask field in a SYSTEM_INFO structure on Windows
should be DWORD_PTR, an integer the size of a pointer.

In s-win32, it is currently declared as DWORD. This happens to work on
32bit hosts and is wrong on 64bit hosts, causing mishaps in accesses to
this component and all the following ones.

The proposed correction adds a definition for DWORD_PTR and uses it for
dwActiveProcessorMask in System.Win32.SYSTEM_INFO.

Tested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, committed on trunk

2019-09-18  Olivier Hainque  <hainque@adacore.com>

gcc/ada/

	* libgnat/s-win32.ads (DWORD_PTR): New type, pointer size
	unsigned int.
	(SYSTEM_INFO): Use it for dwActiveProcessorMask.

gcc/testsuite/

	* gnat.dg/system_info1.adb: New testcase.

[-- Attachment #2: patch.diff --]
[-- Type: text/x-diff, Size: 2239 bytes --]

--- gcc/ada/libgnat/s-win32.ads
+++ gcc/ada/libgnat/s-win32.ads
@@ -57,15 +57,16 @@ package System.Win32 is
    INVALID_HANDLE_VALUE : constant HANDLE := -1;
    INVALID_FILE_SIZE    : constant := 16#FFFFFFFF#;
 
-   type ULONG  is new Interfaces.C.unsigned_long;
-   type DWORD  is new Interfaces.C.unsigned_long;
-   type WORD   is new Interfaces.C.unsigned_short;
-   type BYTE   is new Interfaces.C.unsigned_char;
-   type LONG   is new Interfaces.C.long;
-   type CHAR   is new Interfaces.C.char;
-   type SIZE_T is new Interfaces.C.size_t;
-
-   type BOOL   is new Interfaces.C.int;
+   type ULONG     is new Interfaces.C.unsigned_long;
+   type DWORD     is new Interfaces.C.unsigned_long;
+   type WORD      is new Interfaces.C.unsigned_short;
+   type BYTE      is new Interfaces.C.unsigned_char;
+   type LONG      is new Interfaces.C.long;
+   type CHAR      is new Interfaces.C.char;
+   type SIZE_T    is new Interfaces.C.size_t;
+   type DWORD_PTR is mod 2 ** Standard'Address_Size;
+
+   type BOOL      is new Interfaces.C.int;
    for BOOL'Size use Interfaces.C.int'Size;
 
    type Bits1  is range 0 .. 2 ** 1 - 1;
@@ -265,7 +266,7 @@ package System.Win32 is
       dwPageSize                  : DWORD;
       lpMinimumApplicationAddress : PVOID;
       lpMaximumApplicationAddress : PVOID;
-      dwActiveProcessorMask       : DWORD;
+      dwActiveProcessorMask       : DWORD_PTR;
       dwNumberOfProcessors        : DWORD;
       dwProcessorType             : DWORD;
       dwAllocationGranularity     : DWORD;

--- /dev/null
new file mode 100644
+++ gcc/testsuite/gnat.dg/system_info1.adb
@@ -0,0 +1,23 @@
+--  { dg-do run }
+
+with System.Multiprocessors;
+with System.Task_Info;
+
+procedure System_Info1 is
+   Ncpus : constant System.Multiprocessors.CPU :=
+     System.Multiprocessors.Number_Of_CPUS;
+   Nprocs : constant Integer :=
+     System.Task_Info.Number_Of_Processors;
+
+   use type System.Multiprocessors.CPU;
+begin
+   if Nprocs <= 0 or else Nprocs > 1024 then
+      raise Program_Error;
+   end if;
+   if Ncpus <= 0 or else Ncpus > 1024 then
+      raise Program_Error;
+   end if;
+   if Nprocs /= Integer (Ncpus) then
+      raise Program_Error;
+   end if;
+end;
\ No newline at end of file

Re: [Ada] Fix 32/64bit mistake on SYSTEM_INFO component in s-win32

[Iain Sandoe]

Hi Folks,

> On 18 Sep 2019, at 09:39, Pierre-Marie de Rodat <derodat@adacore.com> wrote:
> 

> gcc/testsuite/
> 
> 	* gnat.dg/system_info1.adb: New testcase.<patch.diff>

This new test fails everywhere on Darwin, which doesn’t have an implementation for
System.Task_Info.Number_Of_Processors

Given 
"pragma Obsolescent (Task_Info, "use System.Multiprocessors and CPU aspect”);”

is it worth me trying to implement the Task_Info stuff?
or should I just skip this test on Darwin?

(if the latter, then I would plan to apply the patch below)

cheers
Iain


2019-09-19  Iain Sandoe  <iain@sandoe.co.uk>

	* gnat.dg/system_info1.adb: Skip for Darwin.


diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gnat.dg/system_info1.adb b/gcc/testsuite/gnat.dg/system_info1.adb
index 493a18e907..c1523a277f 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/gnat.dg/system_info1.adb
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gnat.dg/system_info1.adb
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
---  { dg-do run }
+--  { dg-do run { target { ! *-*-darwin* } } }
 
 with System.Multiprocessors;
 with System.Task_Info;

Re: [Ada] Fix 32/64bit mistake on SYSTEM_INFO component in s-win32

[Rainer Orth]

Hi Iain,

>> On 18 Sep 2019, at 09:39, Pierre-Marie de Rodat <derodat@adacore.com> wrote:
>> 
>
>> gcc/testsuite/
>> 
>> 	* gnat.dg/system_info1.adb: New testcase.<patch.diff>
>
> This new test fails everywhere on Darwin, which doesn’t have an implementation for
> System.Task_Info.Number_Of_Processors
>
> Given 
> "pragma Obsolescent (Task_Info, "use System.Multiprocessors and CPU aspect”);”
>
> is it worth me trying to implement the Task_Info stuff?

I'm seeing the same on Solaris (will be every non-Linux/MinGW target).
I've implemented Number_Of_Processors using
sysconf(__SC_NPROCESSORS_ONLN), which is also available on Darwin.  Will
submit the patch tomorrow once testing has finished...

> or should I just skip this test on Darwin?
>
> (if the latter, then I would plan to apply the patch below)
[...]
> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gnat.dg/system_info1.adb b/gcc/testsuite/gnat.dg/system_info1.adb
> index 493a18e907..c1523a277f 100644
> --- a/gcc/testsuite/gnat.dg/system_info1.adb
> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gnat.dg/system_info1.adb
> @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
> ---  { dg-do run }
> +--  { dg-do run { target { ! *-*-darwin* } } }

Given that the test cannot compile on anything but *-*-linux* and
*-*-mingw*, I'd rather restrict the test to those two (or more targets
that decide to implement the missing interface).

	Rainer

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rainer Orth, Center for Biotechnology, Bielefeld University

Re: [Ada] Fix 32/64bit mistake on SYSTEM_INFO component in s-win32

[Iain Sandoe]

Hi Rainer,

> On 19 Sep 2019, at 15:51, Rainer Orth <ro@CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE> wrote:
> 

>>> On 18 Sep 2019, at 09:39, Pierre-Marie de Rodat <derodat@adacore.com> wrote:
>>> 
>> 
>>> gcc/testsuite/
>>> 
>>> 	* gnat.dg/system_info1.adb: New testcase.<patch.diff>
>> 
>> This new test fails everywhere on Darwin, which doesn’t have an implementation for
>> System.Task_Info.Number_Of_Processors
>> 
>> Given 
>> "pragma Obsolescent (Task_Info, "use System.Multiprocessors and CPU aspect”);”
>> 
>> is it worth me trying to implement the Task_Info stuff?
> 
> I'm seeing the same on Solaris (will be every non-Linux/MinGW target).
> I've implemented Number_Of_Processors using
> sysconf(__SC_NPROCESSORS_ONLN), which is also available on Darwin.  Will
> submit the patch tomorrow once testing has finished…

OK. it’s likely that the same (almost) patch will work for Darwin which also has that Posix call.

I’ll look at your patch and adapt it for Darwin then,

I don’t *think* we can make:

s-tasinf__posix.ad? 

using that since  I think __SC_NPROCESSORS_ONLN is an optional addition? 
(but ICBW about that)

>> or should I just skip this test on Darwin?
>> 
>> (if the latter, then I would plan to apply the patch below)
> [...]
>> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gnat.dg/system_info1.adb b/gcc/testsuite/gnat.dg/system_info1.adb
>> index 493a18e907..c1523a277f 100644
>> --- a/gcc/testsuite/gnat.dg/system_info1.adb
>> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gnat.dg/system_info1.adb
>> @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
>> ---  { dg-do run }
>> +--  { dg-do run { target { ! *-*-darwin* } } }
> 
> Given that the test cannot compile on anything but *-*-linux* and
> *-*-mingw*, I'd rather restrict the test to those two (or more targets
> that decide to implement the missing interface).

that makes sense, too (targets with support can opt in)

cheers
Iain

> 
> 	Rainer
> 
> -- 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Rainer Orth, Center for Biotechnology, Bielefeld University

Re: [Ada] Fix 32/64bit mistake on SYSTEM_INFO component in s-win32

[Olivier Hainque]

Hello Iain & Rainer,

Thanks for the heads up and sorry for the disruption from
this one.

> On 19 Sep 2019, at 17:02, Iain Sandoe <idsandoe@googlemail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Given that the test cannot compile on anything but *-*-linux* and
>> *-*-mingw*, I'd rather restrict the test to those two (or more targets
>> that decide to implement the missing interface).
> 
> that makes sense, too (targets with support can opt in)

Works for me as well. The point of the test is really to check
a 32/64 discrepancy initially observed on Windows. It is not meant
as a general representative test of the System.Task_Info feature.

If you get it to work on Darwin or Solaris and wish to opt-in
afterwards, this is also fine of course :)

We can take care of adding the required filter.

Cheers,

Olivier

Re: [Ada] Fix 32/64bit mistake on SYSTEM_INFO component in s-win32

[Olivier Hainque]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 629 bytes --]

Hello Iain & Rainer,

> On 19 Sep 2019, at 18:40, Olivier Hainque <hainque@adacore.com> wrote:

>>> Given that the test cannot compile on anything but *-*-linux* and
>>> *-*-mingw*, I'd rather restrict the test to those two (or more targets
>>> that decide to implement the missing interface).

> Works for me as well.
[...]
> We can take care of adding the required filter.

I have just committed the attached patch to this effect.
Thanks again for the heads-up!

Cheers,

Olivier

---

2019-09-20  Olivier Hainque  <hainque@adacore.com>

	testsuite/

        * gnat.dg/system_info1.adb: Restrict to *-*-linux* and *-*-mingw*.


[-- Attachment #2: system_info1.diff --]
[-- Type: application/octet-stream, Size: 738 bytes --]

diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gnat.dg/system_info1.adb b/gcc/testsuite/gnat.dg/system_info1.adb
index 493a18e..e299bc4 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/gnat.dg/system_info1.adb
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gnat.dg/system_info1.adb
@@ -1,4 +1,9 @@
---  { dg-do run }
+--  A basic test initially intended to check that
+--  System.Task_Info.Number_Of_Processors yields sensible results on
+--  both 32bit and 64bit Windows. Additional configurations where the
+--  feature was verified to work can opt-in.
+
+--  { dg-do run { target *-*-mingw* *-*-linux* } }
 
 with System.Multiprocessors;
 with System.Task_Info;
@@ -20,4 +25,4 @@ begin
    if Nprocs /= Integer (Ncpus) then
       raise Program_Error;
    end if;
-end;
\ No newline at end of file
+end;

Re: [Ada] Fix 32/64bit mistake on SYSTEM_INFO component in s-win32

[Rainer Orth]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1401 bytes --]

Hi Olivier,

>> On 19 Sep 2019, at 18:40, Olivier Hainque <hainque@adacore.com> wrote:
>
>>>> Given that the test cannot compile on anything but *-*-linux* and
>>>> *-*-mingw*, I'd rather restrict the test to those two (or more targets
>>>> that decide to implement the missing interface).
>
>> Works for me as well.
> [...]
>> We can take care of adding the required filter.
>
> I have just committed the attached patch to this effect.
> Thanks again for the heads-up!

thanks.

> 2019-09-20  Olivier Hainque  <hainque@adacore.com>
>
> 	testsuite/
>
>         * gnat.dg/system_info1.adb: Restrict to *-*-linux* and *-*-mingw*.

I'd keep the target list alphabetical.  Can do so when the Solaris patch
goes in.

Here's what I've successfully tested last night on both
i386-pc-solaris2.11 and sparc-sun-solaris2.11, shamelessly stolen from
the Linux counterparts.  If it is acceptable, I'd add *-*-solaris2.* to
the target list when merging.

	Rainer

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rainer Orth, Center for Biotechnology, Bielefeld University


2019-09-19  Rainer Orth  <ro@CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE>

	* libgnarl/s-osinte__solaris.ads (sysconf): Declare.
	(SC_NPROCESSORS_ONLN): Define.
	* libgnarl/s-tasinf__solaris.ads (Number_Of_Processors): Declare.
	* libgnarl/s-tasinf__solaris.adb (N_CPU): New variable.
	(Number_Of_Processors): New function.


[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #2: sol2-libgnat-n_o_p.patch --]
[-- Type: text/x-patch, Size: 1921 bytes --]

# HG changeset patch
# Parent  48b6a952486ff0ee28ce4b9c1bd4f77a4078491d
Provide Task_Info.Number_Of_Processors on Solaris

diff --git a/gcc/ada/libgnarl/s-osinte__solaris.ads b/gcc/ada/libgnarl/s-osinte__solaris.ads
--- a/gcc/ada/libgnarl/s-osinte__solaris.ads
+++ b/gcc/ada/libgnarl/s-osinte__solaris.ads
@@ -259,6 +259,11 @@ package System.OS_Interface is
    function To_Timespec (D : Duration) return timespec;
    pragma Inline (To_Timespec);
 
+   function sysconf (name : int) return long;
+   pragma Import (C, sysconf);
+
+   SC_NPROCESSORS_ONLN : constant := 15;
+
    -------------
    -- Process --
    -------------
diff --git a/gcc/ada/libgnarl/s-tasinf__solaris.adb b/gcc/ada/libgnarl/s-tasinf__solaris.adb
--- a/gcc/ada/libgnarl/s-tasinf__solaris.adb
+++ b/gcc/ada/libgnarl/s-tasinf__solaris.adb
@@ -84,4 +84,23 @@ package body System.Task_Info is
       return (False, False);
    end Unbound_Thread_Attributes;
 
+   N_CPU : Natural := 0;
+   pragma Atomic (N_CPU);
+   --  Cache CPU number. Use pragma Atomic to avoid a race condition when
+   --  setting N_CPU in Number_Of_Processors below.
+
+   --------------------------
+   -- Number_Of_Processors --
+   --------------------------
+
+   function Number_Of_Processors return Positive is
+   begin
+      if N_CPU = 0 then
+         N_CPU := Natural
+           (OS_Interface.sysconf (OS_Interface.SC_NPROCESSORS_ONLN));
+      end if;
+
+      return N_CPU;
+   end Number_Of_Processors;
+
 end System.Task_Info;
diff --git a/gcc/ada/libgnarl/s-tasinf__solaris.ads b/gcc/ada/libgnarl/s-tasinf__solaris.ads
--- a/gcc/ada/libgnarl/s-tasinf__solaris.ads
+++ b/gcc/ada/libgnarl/s-tasinf__solaris.ads
@@ -139,4 +139,7 @@ package System.Task_Info is
 
    Unspecified_Task_Info : constant Task_Info_Type := null;
 
+   function Number_Of_Processors return Positive;
+   --  Returns the number of processors on the running host
+
 end System.Task_Info;

Re: [Ada] Fix 32/64bit mistake on SYSTEM_INFO component in s-win32

[Arnaud Charlet]

> I'd keep the target list alphabetical.  Can do so when the Solaris patch
> goes in.
> 
> Here's what I've successfully tested last night on both
> i386-pc-solaris2.11 and sparc-sun-solaris2.11, shamelessly stolen from
> the Linux counterparts.  If it is acceptable, I'd add *-*-solaris2.* to
> the target list when merging.

The change is OK.

> 2019-09-19  Rainer Orth  <ro@CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE>
> 
> 	* libgnarl/s-osinte__solaris.ads (sysconf): Declare.
> 	(SC_NPROCESSORS_ONLN): Define.
> 	* libgnarl/s-tasinf__solaris.ads (Number_Of_Processors): Declare.
> 	* libgnarl/s-tasinf__solaris.adb (N_CPU): New variable.
> 	(Number_Of_Processors): New function.

Re: [Ada] Fix 32/64bit mistake on SYSTEM_INFO component in s-win32

[Rainer Orth]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1294 bytes --]

Hi Arnaud,

>> I'd keep the target list alphabetical.  Can do so when the Solaris patch
>> goes in.
>> 
>> Here's what I've successfully tested last night on both
>> i386-pc-solaris2.11 and sparc-sun-solaris2.11, shamelessly stolen from
>> the Linux counterparts.  If it is acceptable, I'd add *-*-solaris2.* to
>> the target list when merging.
>
> The change is OK.
>
>> 2019-09-19  Rainer Orth  <ro@CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE>
>> 
>> 	* libgnarl/s-osinte__solaris.ads (sysconf): Declare.
>> 	(SC_NPROCESSORS_ONLN): Define.
>> 	* libgnarl/s-tasinf__solaris.ads (Number_Of_Processors): Declare.
>> 	* libgnarl/s-tasinf__solaris.adb (N_CPU): New variable.
>> 	(Number_Of_Processors): New function.

Thanks.  Here's what I've installed.

	Rainer

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rainer Orth, Center for Biotechnology, Bielefeld University


2019-09-19  Rainer Orth  <ro@CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE>

	gcc/ada:
	* libgnarl/s-osinte__solaris.ads (sysconf): Declare.
	(SC_NPROCESSORS_ONLN): Define.
	* libgnarl/s-tasinf__solaris.ads (Number_Of_Processors): Declare.
	* libgnarl/s-tasinf__solaris.adb (N_CPU): New variable.
	(Number_Of_Processors): New function.

	gcc/testsuite:
	* gnat.dg/system_info1.adb: Sort dg-do target list.
	Add *-*-solaris2.*.


[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #2: sol2-libgnat-n_o_p.patch --]
[-- Type: text/x-patch, Size: 2414 bytes --]

# HG changeset patch
# Parent  0d13bfaa0b34084a84b2b12d906b7252383366d4
Provide Task_Info.Number_Of_Processors on Solaris

diff --git a/gcc/ada/libgnarl/s-osinte__solaris.ads b/gcc/ada/libgnarl/s-osinte__solaris.ads
--- a/gcc/ada/libgnarl/s-osinte__solaris.ads
+++ b/gcc/ada/libgnarl/s-osinte__solaris.ads
@@ -259,6 +259,11 @@ package System.OS_Interface is
    function To_Timespec (D : Duration) return timespec;
    pragma Inline (To_Timespec);
 
+   function sysconf (name : int) return long;
+   pragma Import (C, sysconf);
+
+   SC_NPROCESSORS_ONLN : constant := 15;
+
    -------------
    -- Process --
    -------------
diff --git a/gcc/ada/libgnarl/s-tasinf__solaris.adb b/gcc/ada/libgnarl/s-tasinf__solaris.adb
--- a/gcc/ada/libgnarl/s-tasinf__solaris.adb
+++ b/gcc/ada/libgnarl/s-tasinf__solaris.adb
@@ -84,4 +84,23 @@ package body System.Task_Info is
       return (False, False);
    end Unbound_Thread_Attributes;
 
+   N_CPU : Natural := 0;
+   pragma Atomic (N_CPU);
+   --  Cache CPU number. Use pragma Atomic to avoid a race condition when
+   --  setting N_CPU in Number_Of_Processors below.
+
+   --------------------------
+   -- Number_Of_Processors --
+   --------------------------
+
+   function Number_Of_Processors return Positive is
+   begin
+      if N_CPU = 0 then
+         N_CPU := Natural
+           (OS_Interface.sysconf (OS_Interface.SC_NPROCESSORS_ONLN));
+      end if;
+
+      return N_CPU;
+   end Number_Of_Processors;
+
 end System.Task_Info;
diff --git a/gcc/ada/libgnarl/s-tasinf__solaris.ads b/gcc/ada/libgnarl/s-tasinf__solaris.ads
--- a/gcc/ada/libgnarl/s-tasinf__solaris.ads
+++ b/gcc/ada/libgnarl/s-tasinf__solaris.ads
@@ -139,4 +139,7 @@ package System.Task_Info is
 
    Unspecified_Task_Info : constant Task_Info_Type := null;
 
+   function Number_Of_Processors return Positive;
+   --  Returns the number of processors on the running host
+
 end System.Task_Info;
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gnat.dg/system_info1.adb b/gcc/testsuite/gnat.dg/system_info1.adb
--- a/gcc/testsuite/gnat.dg/system_info1.adb
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gnat.dg/system_info1.adb
@@ -3,7 +3,7 @@
 --  both 32bit and 64bit Windows. Additional configurations where the
 --  feature was verified to work can opt-in.
 
---  { dg-do run { target *-*-mingw* *-*-linux* } }
+--  { dg-do run { target *-*-linux* *-*-mingw* *-*-solaris2.* } }
 
 with System.Multiprocessors;
 with System.Task_Info;

Re: [Ada] Fix 32/64bit mistake on SYSTEM_INFO component in s-win32

[Rainer Orth]

Hi Iain,

>> On 19 Sep 2019, at 15:51, Rainer Orth <ro@CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE> wrote:
>> 
>
>>>> On 18 Sep 2019, at 09:39, Pierre-Marie de Rodat <derodat@adacore.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>> 
>>>> gcc/testsuite/
>>>> 
>>>> 	* gnat.dg/system_info1.adb: New testcase.<patch.diff>
>>> 
>>> This new test fails everywhere on Darwin, which doesn’t have an
>>> implementation for
>>> System.Task_Info.Number_Of_Processors
>>> 
>>> Given 
>>> "pragma Obsolescent (Task_Info, "use System.Multiprocessors and CPU
>>> aspect”);”
>>> 
>>> is it worth me trying to implement the Task_Info stuff?
>> 
>> I'm seeing the same on Solaris (will be every non-Linux/MinGW target).
>> I've implemented Number_Of_Processors using
>> sysconf(__SC_NPROCESSORS_ONLN), which is also available on Darwin.  Will
>> submit the patch tomorrow once testing has finished…
>
> OK. it’s likely that the same (almost) patch will work for Darwin which
> also has that Posix call.
>
> I’ll look at your patch and adapt it for Darwin then,
>
> I don’t *think* we can make:
>
> s-tasinf__posix.ad? 
>
> using that since  I think __SC_NPROCESSORS_ONLN is an optional addition? 
> (but ICBW about that)

there are two issues here:

* _SC_NPROCESSORS_ONLN is not in XPG7 according to
  https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/.  gnulib
  (lib/nproc.c) lists it as an addition in glibc,
  Mac OS X 10.5, FreeBSD, AIX, OSF/1, Solaris, Cygwin, Haiku.

* In theory, one could at least move the sysconf declaration to a common
  s-osinte__posix.ads since that function *is* part of XPG7.  In fact,
  we already have a couple of duplicate declarations in
  s-osinte__android.ads, s-osinte__kfreebsd-gnu.ads,
  s-osinte__lynxos178.adb, s-osinte__linux.ads, and
  s-taprop__solaris.adb (with a different return type).  While it would
  be good to unify them to avoid the duplication, I don't see how to do
  so: s-osinte.ads is already linked to one of several different
  target-specific versions.

	Rainer

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rainer Orth, Center for Biotechnology, Bielefeld University