GNAT Programming Suite - source file not found - ada

Ada is still new to me, so I am trying to find my way around the GPS IDE. I asked another question earlier, but I think this problem has precedence over that one, and may be at the root of my trouble.
When I compile, I am getting a long list of *warning: source file ... not found"
In my .gpr file, I have listed all of the spec and body source files and use the following naming scheme:
package Naming is
for Casing use "mixedcase";
for Dot_Replacement use ".";
for Spec_Suffix ("ada") use "_s.ada";
for Body_Suffix ("ada") use "_b.ada";
end Naming;
What is odd it the error messages all look either like this:
warning: source file "xxx_b.adb" not found
or this
warning: source file "xxx.adb" not found
Note that neither of these (xxxb.adb or xxx.adb) conform to the file specs, which should end with .ada.
Can someone explain what is going on here?

I'm 99% sure that the problem is one of the ones I mentioned in answer to your other question: GNAT does not normally support more than one compilation unit in a file. I got exactly the behaviour you describe with GPS and these files:
james_s.ada:
with Jane;
package James is
end James;
jim_s.ada:
package Jim is
end Jim;
package Jane is
end Jane;
The error message on compiling james_s.ada says it can't find Jane_s.ada, but when I ask GPS to go to the declaration of Jane it takes me to the "correct" line in jim_s.ada.
You could use gnatchop to split jim_s.ada, but it doesn't understand project files or naming conventions; you probably want to keep the existing names for the code that works, so you'd rename gnatchop's output as required.
However! to my great surprise, it turns out that GNAT does support having more than one compilation unit in a file, provided package Naming in the project file tells it about each unit in the file:
package Naming is
for Casing use "mixedcase";
for Dot_Replacement use ".";
for Spec_Suffix ("ada") use "_s.ada";
for Body_Suffix ("ada") use "_b.ada";
for Spec ("Jim") use "jim_s.ada" at 1;
for Spec ("Jane") use "jim_s.ada" at 2;
end Naming;
It's up to you whether to do this or to bite the bullet and use gnatchop, either on the multi-unit files or on the whole source tree.

First off, this isn't an Ada problem, its a Gnat problem. Other Ada compilers have no problem with the file names you are using.
However, Gnat is rather unique in that it expects there to be only one program unit (package body, package spec, stand-alone routine, etc) per source file. This is because it is also rather unique in that it expects to be able to find the source code for any program unit just by knowing that unit's Ada intentifier. Most other Ada compilers maintain some kind of library file that maps file names to program units, and you have to register all your files into it. (Whereas your typcial C compiler just leaves the problem of finding files for all your code up to the user entirely).
Generally the easiest thing to do with Gnat, the way that will cause you the least trouble, is to just use its default file naming convention (and of course don't put multiple program units in a single file.
If you already have some existing Ada code (perhaps developed for another compiler), the easiest way to import it into Gnat is typically to run the gnatchop tool on it all. So that's what I'd suggest you try.

From GPRbuild User's Guide:
Strings are used for values of attributes or as indexes for these attributes. They are in general case sensitive, except when noted otherwise [...]
Based on this, I believe you have to use "Ada" instead of "ada" as index for Spec_Suffix and Body_Suffix. I currently do not have access to the tools for testing this, so I suggest to just try it out.

Related

CMake COMPILE_DEFINITIONS triggering incorrect number of arguments

I'm having problem understanding how to correctly set the COMPILE_DEFINITIONS target properti in CMake.
my target is add_library(modelutilities STATIC ${modelutilities_SRCS})
I if use
set(modelutilities_COMPILE_DEFINE ${modelutilities_COMPILE_DEFINE} ${Qt5Widgets_COMPILE_DEFINITIONS})
set_target_properties(modelutilities PROPERTIES
VERSION "0.0.1"
SOVERSION 0
EXPORT_NAME "ModelUtilities"
ARCHIVE_OUTPUT_DIRECTORY "${modelutilities_PlatformDir}/lib"
LIBRARY_OUTPUT_DIRECTORY "${modelutilities_PlatformDir}/lib"
RUNTIME_OUTPUT_DIRECTORY "${modelutilities_PlatformDir}/bin"
COMPILE_DEFINITIONS ${modelutilities_COMPILE_DEFINE}
)
everything works fine, but if I add another line between them with set(modelutilities_COMPILE_DEFINE ${modelutilities_COMPILE_DEFINE} MODELUTILITIES_LIB) it stops working complaining that set_target_properties was called with the wrong number of arguments.
Anyone can spot what I'm doing wrong?
P.S.
I already tried using doublequotes: set(modelutilities_COMPILE_DEFINE ${modelutilities_COMPILE_DEFINE} "MODELUTILITIES_LIB"). It did not change anything
P.P.S.
If I message(STATUS ${modelutilities_COMPILE_DEFINE}) QT_WIDGETS_LIB;QT_GUI_LIB;QT_CORE_LIB in the first case and QT_WIDGETS_LIB;QT_GUI_LIB;QT_CORE_LIB;MODELUTILITIES_LIB in the second
With newer version of CMake, what is being preached is the idea of targets. So, for example, instead of include_directories() it's now preferred to use target_include_directories().
That being the case I think you'd be better served using the preferred target_compile_definitions() to set compile definitions for your utilities library.
One advantage you get is that your can scope your compile definitions using the PUBLIC or PRIVATE keywords.

Spec not allow body (remove in gpr file) without touching source files

I got the following error wich is common with generated sources:
spec of this package does not allow a body
I would like to know if it exist a rule to put in the gpr file to ignore this error.
Like a ignore flag.
As I mentionned this files are generated so i have no right on them (not alowed to suppress them neither rewrite them).
More over it would be nice to have a rule that work for every generation.
If you were to compile
package Guillaume is
end Guillaume;
package body Guillaume is
end Guillaume;
in Ada 1983 mode, you would get e.g.
gnatmake -gnat83 guillaume.ads
gcc -c -gnat83 guillaume.ads
guillaume.ada:1:09: warning: package "Guillaume" does not require a body
guillaume.ada:1:09: warning: body in file "guillaume.adb" will be ignored
Having a body that isn’t required by the spec was made illegal with Ada 95 (it would be possible to change a body and for the compilation process not to notice that it needed to be recompiled, leading to confusion). If your code generator was designed to produce Ada 83, then I guess you may have to face compiling in Ada 83 mode - but GNAT doesn’t, as far as I know, guarantee to be 100% compatible, particularly as far as the run time system is concerned.
Are the offending package bodies all actually empty? If so, you might be able to list them and use the Excluded_Source_List_File attribute in your project. If not, you are in trouble, because there’s no way (without changing package sources) to get the code in them to execute.
(Later): actually, Excluded_Source_List_File doesn’t help; it stops gprbuild looking at the file, but not the compiler; and it’s the compiler that rejects the body. Sorry. But if you could make such a list you could use it to delete the bad bodies.
You can exclude the body from the list of source files:
for Excluded_Source_Files use ("my_body.adb");

How to include all function and package declarations in a file called all.lisp for an asdf package-inferred-system

So, in the asdf manual/documentation in section 6.5 of the package-inferred-system extension, the example uses an all.lisp file for determining packages (which I/we will assume will contain all of the function and package information for that respective subdirectoty).
What I want to know is what would be the "proper" way of including all of the function and package declarations in this all.lisp file. Would I do something like including all of the function declarations for that subdirectory in the all.lisp file, and then use the register-system-packages function in the asdf file. Or could I omit the all.lisp file, and let the compiler infer the packages from the files (but would I have to then use the register-system-packages function for every single file I add to this system).
I'm just wondering more about the specifics of using this system and the files and declarations that have to be made when adding a new file to the system.
Sorry for the opacity of the question; I can't seem to grasp the specifics of this system
1- See how it's done in lisp-interface-library/*/all.lisp, using uiop:define-package and its :use-reexport clause.
See for instance pure/all.lisp:
(uiop:define-package :lil/pure/all
(:nicknames :pure)
(:import-from :lil/interface/all)
(:use :closer-common-lisp)
(:mix :fare-utils :uiop :alexandria)
(:use-reexport
:lil/interface/base
:lil/interface/eq
:lil/interface/order
:lil/interface/group
:lil/pure/empty
:lil/pure/collection
:lil/pure/iterator
:lil/pure/map
:lil/pure/set
:lil/pure/alist
:lil/pure/tree
:lil/pure/hash-table
:lil/pure/fmim
:lil/pure/encoded-key-map
:lil/pure/queue
:lil/pure/iterator-implementation
:lil/pure/map-implementation
:lil/pure/set-implementation
:lil/pure/alist-implementation
:lil/pure/tree-implementation
:lil/pure/hash-table-implementation
:lil/pure/fmim-implementation
:lil/pure/encoded-key-map-implementation
:lil/pure/queue-implementation
))
2- These days, I recommend use requiring asdf 3.1 and not using asdf-package-system. For maximal backward incompatibility, use
#-asdf3.1 (error "<my system> requires ASDF 3.1 or later. Please upgrade your ASDF.")
And then in your defsystem, :class :package-inferred-system
3- I do not follow this forum closely. ASDF questions find a quicker answer on the asdf-devel mailing-list.
As I interpret that, you would simply have the package defined in all.lisp depend on the packages defined in the other files of that system. It is then, in a way, an entry point for the dependency graph into that system. I would expect all.lisp to contain high level entry definitions that naturally depend on the other files.
For example, if you build a system that has a (sub-)system for exposing a web interface, the webinterface/all.lisp file/package would contain functions for configuring, starting, and stopping the web server. These functions would depend on the handler definitions in other files/packages which in turn would depend on other files/packages that provide the data or do the meat of request processing.

make does not realize that a relative path name dependency is the same as an absolute pathname target

The following is a simplified makefile for a problem I'm having:
all: /tmp/makey/../filey
#echo All done
/tmp/filey:
#echo Filey
When I run make it says:
make-3.79.1-p7: * No rule to make target /tmp/makey/../filey', needed byall'. Stop.
Clearly it does not realize that /tmp/makey/../filey is the same as /tmp/filey. Any ideas how I can make this work?
Thanks
Ciao
-- Murali
Newer versions of GNU make have $(abspath ...) and $(realpath ...) functions you can apply to your prerequisites and targets to resolve the paths to the same string. If you've constructed these names yourself (for example, $(PREFIX)/../filey) then you can use $(dir $(PREFIX))filey instead.
Other than that, there's no way to solve this problem. Make uses string matching on targets and if the strings are not identical, they don't match (there's a special case to ignore the simple prefix ./) Even if make understood this distinction (by applying abspath itself to each target name, maybe) it would still not help in the face of symbolic links for example.
The only "real" answer would be for make to understand something about the underlying file system (device IDs and inodes for example) that let you talk about files without referring to their pathname. However, in a portable program like make doing this is problematic.

Error in Ada separate file

I am translating a Ada83 to Ada95 file. The problem happens when I try to compile a file which calls a separate. The error is "Illegal character " and refers to directive to preprocessor:
with BAS_PUT;
#if ADA_COMPILER="GNAT" then
WITH ADA.GNAT_PUT;
#else
WITH ADA_PUT;
#end if;
separate(A_CALL_PUT)
procedure ....
This problem does not happen when the same preprocessor directive is in a file adb that it is not a separate function.
Someone can help me???
Ada has no preprocessor, so # is indeed an illegal character.
Some compilers (eg: Gnat) do come with one, but if so it is one of their own devising. If you like you can set up your build system to run your Ada source files through external preprocessor (eg: the C pre-processor). I've never done that, but I'm told its eminently doable.
If your compiler does happen to come with a preprocessor, it is non-standard. Use it if you like, but by definition it will be useless for creating portable source files (which appears to be what you are trying to do with it).
Most folks would consider it better form to just create different source files for your different environments, and have the build environment (make rules?) switch between them.

Resources