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: 103376,751584f55705ddb7 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: john@assen.demon.co.uk (John McCabe) Subject: Re: Ada is almost useless in embedded systems Date: 1996/03/21 Message-ID: <827432438.26126@assen.demon.co.uk>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 143461336 x-nntp-posting-host: assen.demon.co.uk references: <823906039.22113@assen.demon.co.uk> <4g3ljv$mmc@news.pacifier.com> <4gea0h$ckd@goanna.cs.rmit.EDU.AU> <4h3q56$1vk@goanna.cs.rmit.EDU.AU> <826571250.140@assen.demon.co.uk> newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-03-21T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) wrote: >John McCabe says >It might be easy to use, but it obviously has nothing to do with >package Machine_Code, which uses aggregates rather than procedure >calls. What you describe is more closely related to the approach >described in th Ada 95 RM as "intrinsic subprograms" Yes, I've read about them. >If the compiler you cite calls their package Machine_Code, then it clearly >is not an accurate Ada 83 implementation, rather it is an impermissible >extension. If you remember some of my previous postings etc about my current Ada compiler, I think you could probably reach the conclusion that _I_ don't think it is an accurate Ada 83 implementation (motive - be wary of TLD!). It makes me wonder why there is such a fuss about validation! I know the validation suite is limited in what is actually checked but this seems a bit outrageous. >However, in Ada 95, either approach is allowed (package Machine_Code or That does sound better to me (as far as the language is concerned), but obviously TLD appear to be being a bit strange in their interpretation here! >For another example of this, look at the support for machine intrinsics >in the Alsys x86 technology (that's my design, so I know it well :-) I don't think I'll bother looking for the moment thank you (at least not until I need to use an x86 compiler) but that approach sounds similar to the MSPs (Machine Specific Procedures) package that comes with PSS's compiler. Do you know of it? >By the way, the plan for GNAT in this area is to define some additional >attributes which hook into the existing GCC mechanism for assembly >language inserts (see description in GNU C manual). Presumably this is related to the C compilers asm("string") call? Best Regards John McCabe