> I'd like to ping this patch.
>
> Last version of the patch together with Changelog entry can be found in
> mailing list archive:
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-08/msg01229.html
This patch isn't OK, we don't want to add such special case in s-os_lib.adb
Arno
I'd like to ping this patch.
Last version of the patch together with Changelog entry can be found in mailing
list archive:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-08/msg01229.html
Andris
On 08/15/2016 11:27 AM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
Both '/' and '\' must be supported as directory separators. So
DIR_SEPARATOR='/' is not OK in this case.
Understood.
Unconditional converting '/' to '\' in case of DJGPP native build causes
gnatmake to break. Retested it today it with gcc-6.1.0. T
> Both '/' and '\' must be supported as directory separators. So
> DIR_SEPARATOR='/' is not OK in this case.
Understood.
> Unconditional converting '/' to '\' in case of DJGPP native build causes
> gnatmake to break. Retested it today it with gcc-6.1.0. The problem is that
> special directory na
>>> * ada/adaint.c (__gnat_is_djgpp): define (1 for DJGPP host, 0
>>> otherwise). * ada/s-os_lib.ads (Is_Djgpp): import __gnat_is_djgpp as
>>> constant. * ada/s-os_lib.adb (Normalize_Pathname): support DJGPP special
>>> paths (/dev/*) for DJGPP hosts
>> The patch does more than this though:
>
On 08/12/2016 07:18 PM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
2016-07-30 Andris Pavenis
* ada/adaint.c (__gnat_is_djgpp): define (1 for DJGPP host, 0
otherwise). * ada/s-os_lib.ads (Is_Djgpp): import __gnat_is_djgpp as
constant. * ada/s-os_lib.adb (Normalize_Pathname): support DJGPP special
paths (/dev/*)
> 2016-07-30 Andris Pavenis
>
> * ada/adaint.c (__gnat_is_djgpp): define (1 for DJGPP host, 0
> otherwise). * ada/s-os_lib.ads (Is_Djgpp): import __gnat_is_djgpp as
> constant. * ada/s-os_lib.adb (Normalize_Pathname): support DJGPP special
> paths (/dev/*) for DJGPP hosts
The patch does mor
On 07/31/2016 10:57 AM, Arnaud Charlet wrote:
Frankly at this stage, I do not think it makes sense to maintain an
Ada port for DJGPP and in particular maintain all these extra
special cases and #ifdefs.
I don't think this is a reasonable attitude to take with people who
are willing to do the wor
> > Frankly at this stage, I do not think it makes sense to maintain an
> > Ada port for DJGPP and in particular maintain all these extra
> > special cases and #ifdefs.
>
> I don't think this is a reasonable attitude to take with people who
> are willing to do the work to do it.
OK, let me reform
> Frankly at this stage, I do not think it makes sense to maintain an
> Ada port for DJGPP and in particular maintain all these extra
> special cases and #ifdefs.
I don't think this is a reasonable attitude to take with people who
are willing to do the work to do it. Frankly, I'd like to take Ad
Frankly at this stage, I do not think it makes sense to maintain an Ada port
for DJGPP and in particular maintain all these extra special cases and #ifdefs.
How many users are we talking about here?
Arno
> This is first of 4 patches for DJGPP support of Ada compiler
>
> Patch adds support of ha
This is first of 4 patches for DJGPP support of Ada compiler
Patch adds support of handling DJGPP special paths which do not follow normal
DOS file-name rules.
Some details about handled DJGPP special pathnames: for example '/dev/c/foo' is interpreted as
'c:/foo', '/dev/env/DJDIR/include' is i
12 matches
Mail list logo
