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,df13d4f4aa9842dc X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: "Marin David Condic, 561.796.8997, M/S 731-96" Subject: Re: Green Hills Ada library question (Ada on VxWorks) Date: 1998/09/22 Message-ID: <98092209530702@psavax.pwfl.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 393954759 Sender: Ada programming language Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU X-VMS-To: SMTP%"INFO-ADA@VM1.NODAK.EDU" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada X-VMS-Cc: CONDIC Date: 1998-09-22T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: dewarr@MY-DEJANEWS.COM writes: >One interesting question here is whether you need tasking, >or whether a minimal runtime system, of the kind that would >typically be used in a safety-critical system, would be >usable. One approach that some of our customers are exploring >is the use of our GNORT (GNAT No Run-Time) technology that >provides a subset of Ada which generates absolutely ZERO >bytes of runtime. This means that you can simply generate >object files and then run them to the bare board using >whatever low level toolset is appropriate. > >One customer for example is using OS/2 as the development >environment, and then GNORT for actual delivery to the >target system (which is a bare board x86). > I'm curious about GNORT. Does the "zero bytes of runtime" mean that there are no compiler supplied procedures or functions that are ever called to do some common task? By which, I mean something like common code that does a bounds check and raises an exception, or something similar. I do not mean something like the standard libraries for math functions, etc. (Those you can possibly treat as regular packages as if you wrote them yourself, provided you have enough information about the actual implementation) All the code for whatever statements are compiled is generated as some in-line machine code? If you were to allow for subroutines for common operations like bounds checking, would there be any difference in providing subroutines for more complex features, such as task scheduling? (Other than the possible non-determinism. I'm thinking that a run-time library is not necessarily evil if it results in smaller code by sharing some frequently repeated operations and the tradeoff between procedure call overhead and space savings is reasonable.) Just curious about how this stuff is done... MDC Marin David Condic, Senior Computer Engineer Voice: 561.796.8997 Pratt & Whitney GESP, M/S 731-95, P.O.B. 109600 Fax: 561.796.4669 West Palm Beach, FL, 33410-9600 Internet: CONDICMA@PWFL.COM ============================================================================= "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." -- G.B. Shaw =============================================================================