Re: A (hopefully) interesting question...

[Ted Dennison <dennison@telepath.com>]

In article <970752964.3710.0.nnrp-10.d4f021c1@news.demon.co.uk>,
  "Sploo" <sploo@lineone.net> wrote:
> As I'm comfortable designing real-time systems in Ada I'd like to use
> similar design methods for our (as yet undecided) implementation of
> real-time C.

In C such features don't exist. You'll have to rely on OS support.

Your real-time OS (You will be using a real-time OS right? They aren't
*that* stupid are they?)  should have lots of intertask/process
communications primitives of various levels of abstraction. You'll just
have to acquaint yourself with what process/tasking kenel your OS is
using, how it schedules, and what communications and synchronization
primitives are available.

No one could really write a book about this, because it would have to be
a completely different book for each RTOS. There are lots of them (and
more created every year), and they all do things differently. That's one
of the main reasons Ada is just flat out a better language for Real-Time
work: you don't have to relearn all the primitives and sheduling crapola
every time you go to a new platform. If you are careful, you can even
make a *portable* real-time app, something you can't realisticly do with
any other language.

Good luck. I give you about 2 weeks before you start seriously annyoing
everyone by repeating "in Ada this would have been *so* much easier"
every 10 minutes. :-)

--
T.E.D.

http://www.telepath.com/~dennison/Ted/TED.html


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.