TEAM-ADA Archives

Team Ada: Ada Programming Language Advocacy

TEAM-ADA@LISTSERV.ACM.ORG

Options: Use Forum View

Use Proportional Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Todd Coniam <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Date:
Sat, 27 Sep 1997 00:50:10 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (33 lines)
In a message dated 97-09-26 10:18:59 EDT, [log in to unmask]
writes:

<< So here's the problem: If we update the operating system, the compiler we
 are currently using returns numerous compilation errors when recompiling
 the code. The compiler is the older Meridan compiler. We are thus faced
 with the following dilemna: If we upgrade the operating system, we can't
 compile the code - if we don't upgrade, we can't satisfy government Y2K
 compliance requirements and may cause problems with the international
 users. Obviously, it doesn't make sense to have the Ada vendor community
 take a giant step backwards and create an Ada 83 compiler for a NEW
 operating system. Thus, we may be faced with the task of migrating all of
 our application code to Ada 95 and finding a new compiler. Since the Y2K
 compliant version of Digital UNIX may not be released until Jan. '98, we
 are rapidly approaching crunch time.
  >>

Option 1:  If the programs compiled with the older non-Y2K compliant OS
execute correctly when run on the new Y2K compliant OS, then keep the old
version of the OS for the development platform and deploy the application on
the new OS.  Your code works, is not Y2K dependent itself, why change it?

Option 2:  Migrate your code to an Ada 95 compiler (GNAT?) on the new OS.
 Could be a lot of work if your code used Meridian or OS specific features,
or just a simple recompile (see references about migration isues on AdaHome
and at the AJPO) if the code was written to be feature independent.

I would personally go with option 2 to ensure future upgradability but option
1 is a good way to tide you over while you investigate the issues.

Good Luck,
Todd Coniam, MSgt, USAF

ATOM RSS1 RSS2