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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Received: by 10.200.54.121 with SMTP id n54mr3192366qtb.11.1472739874426; Thu, 01 Sep 2016 07:24:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.157.9.106 with SMTP id 97mr1559945otp.7.1472739874389; Thu, 01 Sep 2016 07:24:34 -0700 (PDT) Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feeder01.blueworldhosting.com!peer01.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!j37no12168314qta.0!news-out.google.com!b4ni6630iti.0!nntp.google.com!i184no341830itf.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2016 07:24:34 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=213.108.152.51; posting-account=bMuEOQoAAACUUr_ghL3RBIi5neBZ5w_S NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.108.152.51 References: <7595494c-3398-4fd9-ab4b-80a79383ae33@googlegroups.com> <315a724f-0b77-47fd-9448-369e4670fc99@googlegroups.com> User-Agent: G2/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <354aaa02-2265-40e1-8e48-88036e07fc46@googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: for X'Address use - and Volatile From: Maciej Sobczak Injection-Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2016 14:24:34 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Received-Bytes: 2252 X-Received-Body-CRC: 954431682 Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:31675 Date: 2016-09-01T07:24:34-07:00 List-Id: > And I'd disagree with that. By the time you have >=20 > * many registers to be described to the bit level > * many peripherals in your SOC > * more than a couple of teams involved > * a need to handle interrupts at the Ada level (i.e. with POs) >=20 > a linker script is *not* the best place to specify addresses. Why? In what way are the "many"'s above more difficult in the linker script than= in the Ada code? Linker scripts are source files and they can be managed l= ike other source files. The difference is - the linker script can deal not only with the registers,= but with general memory mapping for everything - including program code, s= tack space, free store, etc. Doing only some of it in Ada and some of it ou= tside of it is just inconsistent. I prefer to have a consistent approach fo= r what I consider to be a single, although general, problem (mapping of pro= gram entities to hardware). --=20 Maciej Sobczak * http://www.inspirel.com