In article <4...@yahoo.com>, CBFalconer <c...@yahoo.com> writes:
> Simon Clubley wrote:
>> 
>> See https://libre.adacore.com/ for the packaged version. Note that
>> I've no experience with this distribution because I prefer to use
>> the FSF distributions so that I'm not restricted in what I can use
>> the compiler for.
> 
> I see no restrictions on that page.  I believe any such are not
> compatible with GPL licensing, which it claims.
> 

The argument, as given by ACT, is that the GCC Ada implementation requires
a runtime library, which is included in a program's executable.

In the distribution at https://libre.adacore.com/ , the runtime library,
along with the other components in that packaging uses the standard GPL.
ACT's argument, as i understand it, is that if you distribute binaries
created using this version, you must distribute those binaries using the
GPL, which requires that your source code also be distributed.

In the FSF version, there is a special exception in the runtime library
that states that inclusion of the runtime library does not by itself
require that the resulting executable be distributed under the GPL.

It's this special exception (generally referred to as the GNAT Modified GPL
or GMGPL) that's missing from the pure GPL version at the above URL.

If you think that all this is confusing to a newcomer to Ada interested
in using GCC for Ada programming, then you will get no argument from me.

BTW, as to your question yesterday about Ada in safety critical work,
are you aware of what Praxis are doing with SPARK, which is an annotated
version of Ada ?

See here for the homepage:

	http://www.praxis-his.com/sparkada/

and here for the list of compilers that they support it with:

	http://www.praxis-his.com/sparkada/compilers.asp

Once again, please note that I have no experience with this.

Simon.

-- 
Simon Clubley, clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP
Microsoft: Bringing you 1980's technology to a 21st century world

In article <V...@eisner.encompasserve.org>, Simon Clubley 
<clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> writes
>The argument, as given by ACT, is that the GCC Ada implementation requires
>a runtime library, which is included in a program's executable.

>BTW, as to your question yesterday about Ada in safety critical work,
>are you aware of what Praxis are doing with SPARK, which is an annotated
>version of Ada ?

I think it was me who asked about the use of the ACT/GCC Ada  for safety 
critical work. I am well aware to what Praxis are doing and it is used a 
lot in safety critical.

My comment was if the GCC version was any use for high integrity 
projects?


-- 
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills  Staffs  England     /\/\/\/\/
/\/\/ c...@phaedsys.org      www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

In article <f...@phaedsys.demon.co.uk>, Chris Hills <c...@phaedsys.org> writes:
> 
> I think it was me who asked about the use of the ACT/GCC Ada  for safety 
> critical work. I am well aware to what Praxis are doing and it is used a 
> lot in safety critical.
> 
> My comment was if the GCC version was any use for high integrity 
> projects?
> 

Not having seen anyone using it in such a way, I would have to say no
because I have no data points to justify saying yes.

Simon.

-- 
Simon Clubley, clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP
Microsoft: Bringing you 1980's technology to a 21st century world

In news:pKROh.17989$N...@newsfe6-win.ntli.net timestamped Thu, 29
Mar 2007 16:23:49 GMT, ChrisQuayle <n...@devnul.co.uk> posted:
"Colin Paul Gloster wrote:

> The Ada standard is available for gratis.

The point being ?. Would you expect to get a usefull book for nothing
that someone has spent considerable time and effort to produce, or
should everything be open source and free ?. Of course, including all
your own work.

Now that it's a sane price, have just downloaded the misra pdf version
[..]

[..]"


Hi,

Due to lectures today; tomorrow; and on Wednesday; and an exam on
Wednesday, I pause my reading of new posts in this thread, but I post
this... a lecturer said today that a book of his in print is published
by McGraw-Hill (in the West) and Tata in India. He is not happy that
his book does not sell well in Europe, costing as it does
approximately 150 euro for the McGraw-Hill edition. However, the Tata
edition costs approximately 7 euro. Sure, money is being charged and
the price is comparable to MISRA's, but he said McGraw-Hill's "only
purpose is to make money" and this seems to be an example that he
would like information to be available.

However, he also claims to have a patent for synthesizing pointers.

Paul Carpenter wrote:

[%X]

> At those sorts of prices it is a lot easier for many organisations
> to at least get the standards, considering how expensive standards
> can be. The classic example is VESA, where you need to obtain several
> standards to do a job and each one is more than that cost.

When I was working for a railway company a few years back I began counting
the number of standards referenced for the whole project. Each of these
standards would have had to have been viewed for relevance to each portion
of the project. One could, of course, sit in a decent library and
methodically go through the standards to select the ones you need to
purchase to complete the project, but that sort of effort takes
considerable time, especially when there are more than two hundred of them.
Of course that was for all the component parts of the whole train.

-- 
********************************************************************
Paul E. Bennett ....................<email://p...@amleth.demon.co.uk>
Forth based HIDECS Consultancy .....<http://www.amleth.demon.co.uk/>;
Mob: +44 (0)7811-639972
Tel: +44 (0)1235-811095
Going Forth Safely ..... EBA. www.electric-boat-association.org.uk..
********************************************************************

Boudewijn Dijkstra wrote:
> Op Sat, 31 Mar 2007 03:00:12 +0200 schreef Robert Adsett 
> <s...@aeolusdevelopment.com>:

>> OK, I give up.  How does typeof help here?

> Conversion to whatever the correct type is, would be as easy as:

> variable = (typeof(variable)) (variable + 1);

That would be utterly pointless, because it's what C would already do 
all by itself, without the need for any cast.

To sum this all up: there's nothing wrong with

	variable++;

that use of typeof() could possibly fix.

Typeof() is useful for one thing only: macros that define their own 
local variables --- a task that really should be done using inline 
functions instead.

Hans-Bernhard Br=F6ker wrote:


>>> OK, I give up.  How does typeof help here?
>> Conversion to whatever the correct type is, would be as easy as:
>=20
>=20
>> variable =3D (typeof(variable)) (variable + 1);
>=20
>=20
> That would be utterly pointless, because it's what C would already do=20
> all by itself, without the need for any cast.
>=20
> To sum this all up: there's nothing wrong with
>=20
>     variable++;
>=20

Don't you understand that (variable + 1) was just an example?
How about (variable + 123) ?


VLV

Simon Clubley wrote:
> CBFalconer <c...@yahoo.com> writes:
>> Simon Clubley wrote:
>>>
>>> See https://libre.adacore.com/ for the packaged version. Note that
>>> I've no experience with this distribution because I prefer to use
>>> the FSF distributions so that I'm not restricted in what I can use
>>> the compiler for.
>>
>> I see no restrictions on that page.  I believe any such are not
>> compatible with GPL licensing, which it claims.
> 
> The argument, as given by ACT, is that the GCC Ada implementation
> requires a runtime library, which is included in a program's
> executable.

Aha.  I see.  And I agree, i.e. they have the right to GPL (or any
other) their library, rather than LGPL.  So their library should
have significant advantages over those normally available with
GCC.  Those need elucidating.  This is no different from my
releasing hashlib under GPL.

-- 
Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
   Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
   <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>;



-- 
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

CBFalconer wrote:
> Simon Clubley wrote:
>> Vladimir Vassilevsky <a...@hotmail.com> writes:
>>> I don't mind using Ada, but where are the compilers? This looks
>>> like another perfectly designed still born thing.
>> Ada is available as part of GCC.
>>
>> You can either use a FSF distribution of GCC, which has no
>> restrictions on what you can use the Ada compiler for, or you can
>> use a packaged distribution from ACT, which is restricted to GPL
>> only projects.
>>
>> See https://libre.adacore.com/ for the packaged version. Note that
>> I've no experience with this distribution because I prefer to use
>> the FSF distributions so that I'm not restricted in what I can use
>> the compiler for.
> 
> I see no restrictions on that page.  I believe any such are not
> compatible with GPL licensing, which it claims.
> 

Actually, the restrictions with the libre.adacore.com is that (pretty 
much) any executables you distribute that are built with it need to be 
distributed under the terms of the GPL because the Ada runtime library 
in that version is GPL and not GPL + Linking exception as is present in 
the FSF tree and the supported AdaCore version.

Note for the original question (in this renamed thread) there are other 
Ada compilers (other than GCC derivatives) as well.

Green Hills, DDC-I and Aonix still have actively supported products.

IBM still sells an version that the developers claim is still supported 
but which is hard to tell from the IBM web pages.

So far, only the compiler from AdaCore has been updated to be compliant 
with the next Ada spec (which is due to be released this year).

Op Tue, 03 Apr 2007 00:25:29 +0200 schreef Vladimir Vassilevsky  
<a...@hotmail.com>:
> Hans-Bernhard Bröker wrote:
>
>>>> OK, I give up.  How does typeof help here?
>>> Conversion to whatever the correct type is, would be as easy as:
>>
>>> variable = (typeof(variable)) (variable + 1);
>>   That would be utterly pointless, because it's what C would already do  
>> all by itself, without the need for any cast.
>>  To sum this all up: there's nothing wrong with
>>      variable++;
>
> Don't you understand that (variable + 1) was just an example?
> How about (variable + 123) ?

int i;
for (i = 123; i > 0; i--) {
   variable++;
}

I wonder how various compilers would optimize this...


-- 
Gemaakt met Opera's revolutionaire e-mailprogramma:  
http://www.opera.com/mail/