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: a07f3367d7,3025dd6d917b499c X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Received: by 10.216.202.93 with SMTP id c71mr469109weo.3.1350183142936; Sat, 13 Oct 2012 19:52:22 -0700 (PDT) Path: q10ni65116151wif.0!nntp.google.com!feeder3.cambriumusenet.nl!82.197.223.108.MISMATCH!feeder2.cambriumusenet.nl!feeder1.cambriumusenet.nl!feed.tweaknews.nl!85.12.40.131.MISMATCH!xlned.com!feeder3.xlned.com!border5.a.newsrouter.astraweb.com!news.astraweb.com!border6.newsrouter.astraweb.com!border4.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border3.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!nrc-news.nrc.ca!goblin1!goblin2!goblin.stu.neva.ru!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Ada, the best language with the not-so-best tool chain Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2012 18:20:18 +0200 Organization: cbb software GmbH Message-ID: <1gvlt0jlx1mcm$.1qpdr3pr4aime.dlg@40tude.net> References: <38af7fb8-b0a4-4a31-87aa-b7b698cc89c3@googlegroups.com> <3ca0ffd0-1764-484b-8fab-17c0d2dd9463@googlegroups.com> <1f645050-cf4c-40bf-a797-9687b69e4a54@googlegroups.com> <18ats2960nsvm$.kfufsnul13aq$.dlg@40tude.net> <5072c9ae$0$6562$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net> <4keoa6epdxt7.1nnwxy7v7ar90.dlg@40tude.net> <5072dc68$0$6554$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net> <1f7cmfp1l65w1.1deog8cfxbs0u$.dlg@40tude.net> <5072e37a$0$6556$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net> <1df8bb52-e659-4539-98f8-67ee60fbce1c@googlegroups.com> Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de NNTP-Posting-Host: 9A8bJrx4NhDLcSmbrb6AdA.user.speranza.aioe.org Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/2.0.15.1 X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: 2012-10-11T18:20:18+02:00 List-Id: On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 08:44:39 -0700 (PDT), mjsilva@scriptoriumdesigns.com wrote: > On Tuesday, October 9, 2012 2:32:31 AM UTC-7, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote: >> Huh, are you building bombs, guys? (:-)) For most physical processes 1ms, >> even 10ms cycle is more than enough. Linux can easily deliver you 1ms >> cycle. > > I've got one AVR project with interrupts every 60us, and I need <1us > latency. Like I said, mechanical processes are slow. And, anyway, there is no affordable AD-DC converters to deliver 1us forward and backward conversion time combined. > The entire board is about 8 sq. cm. Should I port that over to > Linux with 1000x the memory requirements, and if so, could I even get that > kind of response? Controlling mechanical processes do not need such responses. I cannot answer your question without knowing what are you going to achieve. >> And who is talking about performance while choosing an ARM? >> >>> GNAT is running on ARM under RTEMS. I don't know what the current bare >>> metal status is for ARM, although people have posted in the past in >>> c.l.a about work they have done on this. > > RTEMS takes on the order of 1MB of memory, I believe. Way too big for a > great many otherwise useful 32-bit parts. How could 1MB be too big for 32-bit address space? In any case, memory footprint is my least concern when designing an embedded application. -- Regards, Dmitry A. Kazakov http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de