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,fe5641bca012dada X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Markus Kuhn Subject: Re: help about handling interrupts Date: 1998/04/07 Message-ID: <352A659A.75A6EA14@cl.cam.ac.uk>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 341765123 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <3528B9E0.6F0F@bipa162.bi.ehu.es> <3529047A.44EE08B8@cl.cam.ac.uk> <352A14FA.6E9E4778@cl.cam.ac.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Organization: Cambridge University, Computer Laboratory Mime-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1998-04-07T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Robert A Duff wrote: > >...The sections in the RM you quoted have been intended > >for compilers for embedded systems, ... > > True, but when the compiler is generating code for normal user-mode > processes running under an operating system, it makes perfect sense to > map those features onto the software interrupts supported by the OS -- > "signals" in Unix, "ASTs" in VMS. It might also make sense in some > operating systems to write installable device drivers and whatnot in > Ada. Fully agreed. > >The GNAT RM says: > You mean the Ada RM! No, this was quoted from the GNAT RM, not the Ada RM. The sentence "Followed ..." refers to what GNAT does, although the first sentence seems to be copied from the Ada RM. Annex C of the GNAT RM is a very minimalistic approach of writing this annex. For most sections, it just says "Followed." without any further discussion of how the implementors did it. Some more information about for which targets GNAT supports Ada handeled interrupts would have been been nice. The annex C of the GNAT RM reads very much like a text that has been written for the sole purpose of fulfilling the standard by the letter. > >"C.3.1(20-21): Protected Procedure Handlers > > > >Whenever possible, the implementation should allow interrupt handlers to > >be called directly by the hardware. Followed on any target where the > >underlying operating system permits such direct calls." Markus -- Markus G. Kuhn, Security Group, Computer Lab, Cambridge University, UK email: mkuhn at acm.org, home page: