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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,a3ca574fc2007430
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Ken Garlington <garlingtonke@lmtas.lmco.com>
Subject: Re: Ada and Automotive Industry
Date: 1996/11/15
Message-ID: <328C7051.2F3B@lmtas.lmco.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 196707685
references: <1996Nov12.192850.16867@ole.cdac.com> <dewar.847919706@merv>
content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
organization: Lockheed Martin Tactical Aircraft Systems
mime-version: 1.0
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
x-mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Macintosh; I; 68K)
Date: 1996-11-15T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Robert Dewar wrote:
> 
> James says
> 
> "Originally C was designed around PDP-11 class machines: 16 bits,
> multiple registers, indirect addressing modes, etc.  Since gcc has
> to dumb down C for an 8-bit machine, how much would GNAT have
> to dumb down Ada to target an 8051?  Would you still think it was Ada?"
> 
> Definitely yes, most of the important parts of Ada are quite independent
> of code generation, thinks like generics, packages, etc have no code
> generation implication so do not have to removed in this context.

So, has anyone formally defined what parts of Ada would still make sense
in this context (assuming we all even agree on what "this context" means)?

-- 
LMTAS - "Our Brand Means Quality"
For more info, see http://www.lmtas.com or http://www.lmco.com