Professional Ada 2005 tools for AVR

Go To Last Post
8 posts / 0 new
Author
Message
#1
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0

I just ran across this, even though the news is a year old.

http://www.adacore.com/2009/03/3...

Interesting, just interesting.

(I should mention that I think Ada is an excellent language for embedded systems, and one I'd love to be able to use in my own embedded work)

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0

Some issues of WinAVR have included the GCC Ada. However it appears Eric has dropped this from WinAVR20100110 but the files (that rely on WinAVR20100110 being installed) are here:

http://sourceforge.net/projects/...

some info about using it here:

http://sourceforge.net/apps/medi...

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0

kk6gm wrote:
(I should mention that I think Ada is an excellent language for embedded systems, and one I'd love to be able to use in my own embedded work)
If you're willing to go GPL across the board, a GPL version of GNAT
Pro AVR was announced:
https://www.avrfreaks.net/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&t=95239
Edit: 2010-07-03 - typo.

"Dare to be naïve." - Buckminster Fuller

Last Edited: Sat. Jul 3, 2010 - 09:03 PM
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0

Quote:

If you're willing to go GPL across the board,

But isn't that GPL in the same sense that avr-gcc is GPL? That is that if you modify the compiler itself you must redistribute the modified source but the code you actually compile with the compiler has no licence restrictions imposed?

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0

Long ago I used a GCC and it's documentation stated your application becomes GPL.
I need to read GPL 2 ....
Read a summary and arguments; I'm starting to spin.
After a link your program likely used part of 'libgcc.a'; the GCC library is GPL therefore your program becomes GPL.
There is an argument that your program does not.
A lot of companies avoid the problem by buying commercial versions of GCC.
EDIT:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#CanIUseGPLToolsForNF
You still have to deal with use of gcc and libgcc; how to do this is stated in GPL.

"Dare to be naïve." - Buckminster Fuller

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0

FUD, FUD, FUD, and FUD, because

Only that libgcc does not use the normal GPL, but comes with an exception.

And only that avr-libc is not libgcc, and comes with a completely different license (BSD style).

And that buying commercial GCC versions don't change the GCC license, because the commercial vendors don't have all the rights from all contributing individuals and organizations to change the GCC license. They inherit code which is licensed to them and does not grant them the right to relicense it under a different license. They can only add a library or tool under their own license, not relicense anything they don't have the copyright for.

Stealing Proteus doesn't make you an engineer.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0

How could anyone be using GCC professionally if it really were the case that it's generated code was limited by GPL?!? Crazy!

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0

ArnoldB wrote:
FUD, FUD, FUD, and FUD, because
Had to look FUD up.
"Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt".
Or, "a Mexican brand of cold cuts and hot dogs" :wink:
I concur with you.

ArnoldB wrote:
Only that libgcc does not use the normal GPL, but comes with an exception.

And only that avr-libc is not libgcc, and comes with a completely different license (BSD style).

Thanks; didn't know about those.

ArnoldB wrote:
And that buying commercial GCC versions don't change the GCC license, because the commercial vendors don't have all the rights from all contributing individuals and organizations to change the GCC license. They inherit code which is licensed to them and does not grant them the right to relicense it under a different license. They can only add a library or tool under their own license, not relicense anything they don't have the copyright for.
True but they are tasked to publicly release their changes to GCC and they do. I've noticed that GCC vendors will release at least once per year. Companies will buy rights to use these GCC vendors' products. Is it because of GPL? Is it for access to GCC maintenance?
When using a commercial GCC, I found a problem with a run-time component. I proposed an initial working solution and passed it on to the GCC vendor; should I have published the change? I did not.

"Dare to be naïve." - Buckminster Fuller