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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,4e5770c49b971630 X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news2.google.com!news3.google.com!feeder.news-service.com!feeder.erje.net!news2.arglkargh.de!noris.net!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool2.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" Subject: Re: High-Integrity OO and controlled types Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/2.0.15.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de Organization: cbb software GmbH References: <679e3217-98dd-43c1-86f6-2038a029c3ea@b19g2000yqg.googlegroups.com> <94f3a272-d071-4a74-bfbd-8f2b4c2347cf@m10g2000yqd.googlegroups.com> <4dbfe6cc$0$7664$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net> <1in9ypl17vu1t$.1shivr91x8zw6.dlg@40tude.net> <4dc01dca$0$6885$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net> <1ds39akl3dbii$.mlyj7piip5o3.dlg@40tude.net> <4dc112cf$0$6772$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net> <4dc166bd$0$6973$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net> <1ligthpgu6ogv$.dquevy2bn4tw$.dlg@40tude.net> <4dc16ff7$0$6985$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net> <1wtqj5ym270iw.11hopx6y7w1co$.dlg@40tude.net> <4dc187af$0$6991$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net> Date: Wed, 4 May 2011 22:16:51 +0200 Message-ID: <15h978k5yukhl.kga2durs3cjl.dlg@40tude.net> NNTP-Posting-Date: 04 May 2011 22:16:48 CEST NNTP-Posting-Host: 597761d5.newsspool3.arcor-online.net X-Trace: DXC=95OcKP=1^o0NTD55K=McF=Q^Z^V384Fo<]lROoR18kF[ On Wed, 04 May 2011 19:06:55 +0200, Georg Bauhaus wrote: > On 04.05.11 18:23, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote: > >>> Try adding pragma Profile (Ravenscar) there ;.) >> >> I don't care much about Ravenscar, which is too limiting for almost >> anything. There are limitations to make life easier for the readers and >> ones for the compiler and prover. They are not same, some contradict to the >> goals of each other. I always choose the former over the latter. > > Does it work when systems need to be fast at the lower levels? Performance optimization is a different angle. There is no obvious reason why following or ignoring Ravenscar's restrictions should result in either faster or slower program. The problem with Ravenscar is that in my case it unfortunately does not let me fulfill the functional requirements I have. Under such circumstances non-functional niceties play no role. I am not sure if the problem is fundamental, i.e. no conformant program exists. Even if it did I could not design or understand it anyway... >>> Is there really little overhead when Restore is replaced >>> with some objects? >> >> [...] >> >> Negligible since used upon an exception, which I hope is not to propagate >> at 100ns rate. > > Ah, o.K., I should have said source code maintenance overhead, too, > and increased system complexity. Developing /= maintenance. -- Regards, Dmitry A. Kazakov http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de