How was newlib supposed to have been used?

[Dave Korn]

On 18 January 2008 06:45, Ralf Corsepius wrote:

> On Thu, 2008-01-17 at 23:57 +0000, Luke A. Guest wrote:
>> On Thu, 2008-01-17 at 13:43 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>> 
>>> Neither, nor and all of it.
>>> 
>>> newlib is a libc implementation.
>> 
>> Yeah, I'm aware of this :/
>> 
>>> I.e. it is a library providing a standardized API to resources
>>> underneath, which applications might want to use at run-time, and which
>>> toolchains (compiler/linker etc.) will want to know about.
>> 
>> And this too.
>> 
>>> What these resources actually are is secondary. They can be
>>> "bare-metal", a full fledged kernel or other libraries.
>>> Newlib can be and is being used in all of these situations.
>> 
>> Right, so as I'm aiming for bare hw, am I going in the right direction
>> to get *a minimal GNAT runtime* working for i386-elf (and mips[el]-elf)?
> 
> I don't know how to answer this.
> 
> GNAT, normally is a toolset implementing a programming language (Ada)
> built around/ontop of a libc.
> 
> Leaving aside all other ugliness of GNAT, I am not sufficiently familiar
> with Ada to be able to judge how far you can get without at least having
> some OS-elements (processes, memory-management, io, etc.) available.

  I have no personal experience with GNAT[*], but a google "gnat newlib"
suggests that RTEMS, at least, does use or has used newlib to support GNAT on
target i386-rtemscoff-gnat-newlib among others.  You might be able to get
somewhere by adapting the instructions at 

http://www.rtems.org/wiki/index.php/RTEMSAda

    cheers,
      DaveK

[*] - or RTEMS, for that matter.
-- 
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....