Re: Runtime startup code for the GNAT Runtime...and a bit of humble pie.

[Ludovic Brenta <ludovic@ludovic-brenta.org>]

Simon Clubley writes:
> One of the reasons to use Ada over, say C, is for the increased reliability
> of the code. However, what if the ported Ada RTS actually results in more
> unreliable code because of issues the person porting the RTS did not fully
> understand or was simply was not aware of ?
>
> That's not too bad if your faulty project is sitting on your workbench when
> it fails, but what if you have chosen to run Ada in a robot or model aircraft
> because you wanted increased reliability in those environments ?
>
> I've gone back and forth on this in my mind for quite some time and my
> current thinking is to use C for the low-end bare metal parts of a project
> and to use Ada (under say RTEMS) for the higher level parts of a project.
>
> I've looked around for languages with real time capabilities, a small
> footprint, easy to port to a range of new environments in a reliable way,
> and under active development but after considering the options, I chose
> (reluctantly) to stay with C for the low end bare metal code.

Just a wild idea: have you considered writing these bare-metal parts in
Ada with no run-time whatsoever, linking and importing some existing
routines from the C run-time?  Is this an acceptable compromise?

-- 
Ludovic Brenta.