From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD, FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,21bae80fd7acfdb2 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: Maciej Sobczak Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Ravenscar and portability Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 00:23:06 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Message-ID: <1188544986.420853.189520@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com> References: <1188373938.765288.214720@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 137.138.37.241 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Trace: posting.google.com 1188544989 3600 127.0.0.1 (31 Aug 2007 07:23:09 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 07:23:09 +0000 (UTC) In-Reply-To: User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8.0.12) Gecko/20070724 Red Hat/1.5.0.12-0.3.slc3 Firefox/1.5.0.12,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com; posting-host=137.138.37.241; posting-account=ps2QrAMAAAA6_jCuRt2JEIpn5Otqf_w0 Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:1618 Date: 2007-08-31T00:23:06-07:00 List-Id: On 31 Sie, 01:08, Robert A Duff wrote: > > The Ravenscar profile contains the No_Implicit_Heap_Allocations > > constraint. > > > The problem is that the operations that might require implicit heap > > allocation are implementation-defined. This means that programs can be > > declared as Ravenscar-compliant *only* in the context of some chosen > > Ada implementation. > I believe all of Ada's features, excluding some predefined library > units, can be implemented without implicit heap allocation. What about unconstrained types? Indeed, basic use cases can be implemented on the stack, but I might be missing something less obvious. > But I'm not even sure how to precisely define "implicit heap > allocation". Good question, but I was not around when Ravenscar was defined... > The Strings.Unbounded does heap allocation. Is it "implicit"? I would say yes, because the usage of heap is not stated in the standard. It might be a common implementation practice and there might even be no other choice, but it is not stated. -- Maciej Sobczak http://www.msobczak.com/