Re: Ada (Was: GCC 3.0 Release Criteria)

Re: Ada (Was: GCC 3.0 Release Criteria)

[Richard Kenner]

    It would be wise to discuss the integrations issues on this list since
    ultimately this group is going to be affected by those changes and may
    have opinions/ideas on how to make it go more smoothly.

Sorry for the confusion.  The issues aren't techincal at all: all
needed GCC changes have already been checked in.  I'm talking about
the issues raised by the *size* of GNAT's sources and how to
coordinate it with the GNAT/Linux project's tree.

Re: Ada (Was: GCC 3.0 Release Criteria)

[Joe Buck]

>     It would be wise to discuss the integrations issues on this list since
>     ultimately this group is going to be affected by those changes and may
>     have opinions/ideas on how to make it go more smoothly.

Richard Kenner writes:
> Sorry for the confusion.  The issues aren't techincal at all: all
> needed GCC changes have already been checked in.  I'm talking about
> the issues raised by the *size* of GNAT's sources and how to
> coordinate it with the GNAT/Linux project's tree.

If GNAT works without any patches to other gcc sources when 3.0 is
released, then it doesn't seem that there is anything else left to be done
(I hadn't realized that Kenner had made so much progress on integration
with the current GCC tree).  Given GNAT's large size and the smaller
number of interested people (compared to C and C++), and the fact that the
bootstrap process cannot build it (the front end is written in Ada so you
need an Ada compiler such as an earlier version of GNAT to build it) I
don't think it's really that desirable to physically put the GNAT source
into the GCC tree.

Rather, it would suffice to include pointers on the gcc web site and
documentation to the corresponding information for GNAT, so that
interested people could load it.

Re: Ada (Was: GCC 3.0 Release Criteria)

[Laurent Guerby]

Joe Buck <jbuck@possibly.synopsys.com> wrote:
> [...] Given GNAT's large size and the smaller number of interested
> people (compared to C and C++), and the fact that the bootstrap
> process cannot build it (the front end is written in Ada so you need
> an Ada compiler such as an earlier version of GNAT to build it) I
> don't think it's really that desirable to physically put the GNAT
> source into the GCC tree.

The upcoming Debian release has GNAT in it, and I believe members of
the GNAT/Linux team are talking with various other Linux distribution
guyes, this probably means that most GNU/Linux systems will have it
installed by default soon.

For most other (proprietary) systems, you must pay to have a closed
source C compiler to build GCC, so having to download a free GNAT
binary in the case you want to build GCC with LANGUAGES="c c++ ada" is
not a real problem IMHO.

> Rather, it would suffice to include pointers on the gcc web site and
> documentation to the corresponding information for GNAT, so that
> interested people could load it.

That what the situation is right now. 

What is the point of renaming GCC to the GNU Compiler Collection if
significant (at least in size and functionality) front ends are left
out of the public development process?

One benefit of having the Ada front end in is that its bootstrap and
runtime build are valuable tests of the back-end. Also, there is a
publically available huge validation test suite for Ada (formerly
known as ACVC), and also a performance test suite (ACES). Huge here
means thousands of tests.

Provided that Ada Core Technologies finds it possible to integrate the
GNAT sources in the GCC development process (not obvious), I volunteer
to work on packaging the available Ada test suites so they can be used
easily to test GCC (and depending on timing, for 3.0).

Background: I worked for ACT in the past and wrote most of the
automated build and test system used for GNAT that I believe is still
in use (and extended ;-). The ACVC testing is done by ACT daily, but
with the additional complexity of non executable tests and peculiar
build process and reporting to abide by the standard, which is not
needed per see.

-- 
Laurent Guerby <guerby@acm.org>

Re: Ada (Was: GCC 3.0 Release Criteria)

[Joe Buck]

> The upcoming Debian release has GNAT in it, and I believe members of
> the GNAT/Linux team are talking with various other Linux distribution
> guyes, this probably means that most GNU/Linux systems will have it
> installed by default soon.

Debian will contain GNAT, but will not install GNAT by default.
Debian has thousands of packages but the number that are installed
by default is far smaller.  Just the same, if this bundling results
in less US Gov't dollars going to a certain billionaire in Redmond,
fine with me :-).

Now, if the GNAT maintainers *want* to put GNAT into the GCC tree, because
it will make their lives easier, I won't object.  I wasn't sure whether
Richard Kenner really wanted to do that.  Given that uncertainty, I
certainly didn't want to make it a release criterion (the original title
of this message, remember?).

> One benefit of having the Ada front end in is that its bootstrap and
> runtime build are valuable tests of the back-end. Also, there is a
> publically available huge validation test suite for Ada (formerly
> known as ACVC), and also a performance test suite (ACES). Huge here
> means thousands of tests.
> 
> Provided that Ada Core Technologies finds it possible to integrate the
> GNAT sources in the GCC development process (not obvious), I volunteer
> to work on packaging the available Ada test suites so they can be used
> easily to test GCC (and depending on timing, for 3.0).

I'll be happy if you do that, although I'm against making a complete pass
on these test suites a requirement for the 3.0 release.  Too many
requirements means that we never ship, and in the past there has been
a certain amount of tension between requirements for Ada and requirements
for other languages.

Re: Ada (Was: GCC 3.0 Release Criteria)

[Laurent Guerby]

Joe Buck <jbuck@possibly.synopsys.com> wrote:
> Debian will contain GNAT, but will not install GNAT by default.
> Debian has thousands of packages but the number that are installed
> by default is far smaller.  

I assume so, given the size of Debian, some choices for the default
obviously have to be made ;-).

> Just the same, if this bundling results in less US Gov't dollars
> going to a certain billionaire in Redmond, fine with me :-).

Well, some US taxpayer money already went into GNAT and GCC, and also
in developping the test suites I mentionned.

> Now, if the GNAT maintainers *want* to put GNAT into the GCC tree, because
> it will make their lives easier, I won't object.  I wasn't sure whether
> Richard Kenner really wanted to do that.  

I'm not sure either, I'm even less sure that it will makes ACT people
life easier in any case ;-).

> Given that uncertainty, I certainly didn't want to make it a release
> criterion (the original title of this message, remember?). [...]

Yes, sorry, I wasn't in sync with the thread subject, I'm not
suggesting including this as a hard release criteria for GCC 3.0 given
the uncertainties you and I mentionned.

-- 
Laurent Guerby <guerby@acm.org>

Re: Ada (Was: GCC 3.0 Release Criteria)

[Richard Kenner]

    Now, if the GNAT maintainers *want* to put GNAT into the GCC tree,
    because it will make their lives easier, I won't object.  I wasn't
    sure whether Richard Kenner really wanted to do that.  Given that
    uncertainty, I certainly didn't want to make it a release criterion
    (the original title of this message, remember?).

There's certainly no problem in putting GNAT into the tree from a technical
point of view, but the issues that come in doing so are precisely those
that have come up in this thread.

Re: Ada (Was: GCC 3.0 Release Criteria)

[Jeffrey A Law]

  In message < 10004281442.AA10712@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu >you write:
  >     Out of curiosity: What is the current plan for integrating the Ada
  >     front-end into the GCC tree?
  > 
  > Well, they are going to be working together soon (they are fairly well
  > right now), but the issues involving taking a huge chunk of code like
  > GNAT and adding it into the tree aren't completely settled yet.
It would be wise to discuss the integrations issues on this list since
ultimately this group is going to be affected by those changes and may
have opinions/ideas on how to make it go more smoothly.

jeff

Re: Ada (Was: GCC 3.0 Release Criteria)

[Richard Kenner]

    Out of curiosity: What is the current plan for integrating the Ada
    front-end into the GCC tree?

Well, they are going to be working together soon (they are fairly well
right now), but the issues involving taking a huge chunk of code like
GNAT and adding it into the tree aren't completely settled yet.

Ada (Was: GCC 3.0 Release Criteria)

[Martin v. Loewis]

> I've already gotten obstacks out of the Ada front end.

Out of curiosity: What is the current plan for integrating the Ada
front-end into the GCC tree?

Martin