Re: Ada, the best language with the not-so-best tool chain

["Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>]

On Tue, 09 Oct 2012 12:50:53 -0400, Dennis Lee Bieber wrote:

> On Tue, 9 Oct 2012 11:33:07 +0200, "Dmitry A. Kazakov"
> <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> declaimed the following in comp.lang.ada:
> 
>> On Mon, 8 Oct 2012 20:16:12 +0000 (UTC), Simon Clubley wrote:
>> 
>>> would not be suitable if you have hard real
>>> time requirements (although there are various RT extensions which might
>>> be suitable in some circumstances).
>> 
>> 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.
>>
> 	Well, I did have an assignment a decade ago that actually would have
> worked better with an off-system processor. A Win98SE laptop is
> definitely not a real-time processor -- even with the program running at
> the highest available priority class the OS kept interrupting.

I don't remember Win98, wasn't it actually DOS 6.2 like Win95 before it?

Anyway, you can have up to 5ms under Windows, starting from Win2K. There
are some tricks, in particular the time slice should be set at 1ms. 10ms is
the default, which is the main reason for the "jitter." Setting the process
at the "RT priority" is not really needed. And yes, it won't prevent
drivers from preempting the process.

Actually we do lot of control straight under Windows. You may wonder but it
works fine.

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de