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=-0.4 required=5.0 tests=AC_FROM_MANY_DOTS,BAYES_00 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,ac55ec18f7b0a53c X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-06-06 09:10:19 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!skynet.be!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!surfnet.nl!isdnet!psinet-france!psiuk-f4!psiuk-p4!uknet!psiuk-n!news.pace.co.uk!nh.pace.co.uk!not-for-mail From: "Marin David Condic" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Ada and embedded applications Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 11:42:23 -0400 Organization: Posted on a server owned by Pace Micro Technology plc Message-ID: <9flj10$4nh$1@nh.pace.co.uk> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: 136.170.200.133 X-Trace: nh.pace.co.uk 991842144 4849 136.170.200.133 (6 Jun 2001 15:42:24 GMT) X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@pace.co.uk NNTP-Posting-Date: 6 Jun 2001 15:42:24 GMT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:8236 Date: 2001-06-06T15:42:24+00:00 List-Id: I think a more prudent answer would be "It Depends". Considering that it is possible to generate programs that will need lots of constraint checking at runtime & constraint errors are sort of part of exception handling, one might conclude that exception handling can cost a significant part of the budget due to code bloat & runtime inefficiencies. (This may be from whence the original "rubbish" came from - a misunderstanding of the *necessity* of doing all this checking.) The other side of exception processing is that you can easily turn off checking & run without a net. At that point, exception processing should be at or near 0 as part of the memory/CPU budget. I've done embedded stuff where leaving in runtime error checking would have killed the project. In a sense this is "inherent in the language" because Ada requires that the checks be done for validation. In another sense it is not inherent because the language provides means of disabling the checks when speed/space is an issue. So it is fair to say that exception processing *can* impose a significant overhead, but *need not*, provided you understand what you are doing. MDC -- Marin David Condic Senior Software Engineer Pace Micro Technology Americas www.pacemicro.com Enabling the digital revolution e-Mail: marin.condic@pacemicro.com Web: http://www.mcondic.com/ "Ken Garlington" wrote in message news:JBgT6.1923$E6.322615411@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com... > : Also does exception handling in Ada really > : have a large overhead? (This is probably an implementation issue but is > their > : anything in the language that makes exception handling bulky?). > > Not for most of the embedded Ada code I've written. > >