Why can't I see any active code in the translated files? All I can see is the comments after the conversion.

• Related Articles

• Why don’t I throw out my code and start anew?

  There are many reasons to leverage your legacy code. Here are a few: Leverage existing software and knowledge base when migrating to next-generation platforms Achieve your time to market goals Don’t throw away your software investment

• Why should an automated conversion tool first compile the Ada code?

  For any automated conversion method you will require that the Ada source code be compilable by the tool. Unless you can compile Ada source code, there is really no way to know what it is doing. For example, in Ada, something as simple as "F(X)" can ...

• The .h and .c files were created, but all it contained were the comments. No errors were reported in the command console. Why were these files not converted?

  This normally means there was some compile-time error, or it might be that the file produces no code. This might happen for a generic package or generic subprogram, which produce code only when instantiated. We would need a test case to be sure ...

• Does Ada-C/C++ Changer accept Ada83 code or is conversion to Ada95 required?

  Ada-C/C++ Changer accepts Ada83 code as is and does not require the code to be converted to Ada95

• Why are .h and .c files created for each Ada file? I expected the Foo.1.ada file to be converted to Foo.h and the Foo.2.ada to be converted as Foo.c. Instead, I get a pair of .h and .c files for the Foo.1.ada and Foo.2.ada files.

  A single Ada source file can have any kind of code within it, though some compilers are more restrictive than that and use specific naming conventions (such as Rational’s .1.ada and .2.ada, or AdaCore’s .ads and .adb). Ada-C/C++ Changer is designed ...