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
	autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Received: by 2002:a24:75c9:: with SMTP id
 y192-v6mr3517596itc.10.1529622283729;
        Thu, 21 Jun 2018 16:04:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a9d:4b04:: with SMTP id q4-v6mr570424otf.3.1529622283521;
 Thu, 21 Jun 2018 16:04:43 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!feeder.erje.net!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed8.news.xs4all.nl!85.12.16.68.MISMATCH!peer01.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer01.am4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!peer03.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!d7-v6no111835itj.0!news-out.google.com!z3-v6ni122iti.0!nntp.google.com!d7-v6no111833itj.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2018 16:04:43 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <lyfu1fiytu.fsf@pushface.org>
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com;
 posting-host=47.185.195.62;
 posting-account=zwxLlwoAAAChLBU7oraRzNDnqQYkYbpo
NNTP-Posting-Host: 47.185.195.62
References: <584564c2-9f64-4965-b045-535cdaf899c0@googlegroups.com>
 <pgdtbd$7pd$1@dont-email.me>
 <7cb22c58-3009-47f0-8fe7-62f3cd61785d@googlegroups.com>
 <52b14af1-ee0a-40af-871a-beeced6bce1c@googlegroups.com>
 <f84fbda6-34e8-440c-bcf5-2b8ddf03f359@googlegroups.com>
 <87wour97a8.fsf@nightsong.com>
 <f9d427f9-0018-4eee-b945-428e47e2ac58@googlegroups.com>
 <lyfu1fiytu.fsf@pushface.org>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <98aac007-7512-4ae3-94de-f02e7e2651ae@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Why are Ada compilers difficult to write ?
From: "Dan'l Miller" <optikos@verizon.net>
Injection-Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2018 23:04:43 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Received-Bytes: 3003
X-Received-Body-CRC: 3890507589
Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:53236
Date: 2018-06-21T16:04:43-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Thursday, June 21, 2018 at 5:01:19 PM UTC-5, Simon Wright wrote:
> "Dan'l Miller" writes:
>=20
> > microcontrollers and DSPs and NPs are all severely
> > resource-constrained to the point of making any Ada or C++ or Java
> > support impractical therein
>=20
> Not true (for MCUs, Ada & C++ anyway).

My reply and Paul Rubin's reply were both in the context of the 8-bit micro=
controllers supported by sdcc.  Which Ada complier(s) support any of sdcc's=
 following 8-bit microcontrollers (many of which are vintage 1970s-era 8-bi=
t ISAs)?
1) Intel's MSC51 (8031, 8032, 8051, 8052), [even wimpier ISA than an 8080/Z=
80, 64KiB DRAM]
2) Freescale HC08, S08 [derived from the 6808 as utilized in the Radio Shac=
k Color Computer, 64KiB DRAM]
3) Zilog's Z80 [as utilized in the Sinclair ZX80, 64KiB DRAM]
4) STMicro's STM8 [which is arguably a 16-bit processor with 32-bit DRAM ad=
dressing and 24-bit program counter, not even remotely in the same class as=
 resource-constrained 8-bit microcontrollers]

And the Atmel AVR RISC-processor (!) "microcontroller" doesn't count becaus=
e it isn't limited to 64 KiB DRAM and single-digit or tens of megahertz lik=
e those listed above in SDCC's repertoire.  Does anyone actually use GNAT t=
o target tinyAVR, which is the only one of the AVR line that is comparable =
to the MCS51, HC08, and Z80 listed above in SDCC's repertoire.