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=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: f43e6,2c6139ce13be9980 X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,3d3f20d31be1c33a X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: fac41,2c6139ce13be9980 X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,2c6139ce13be9980 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public From: donh@syd.csa.com.au (Don Harrison) Subject: Re: Safety-critical development in Ada and Eiffel Date: 1997/07/24 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 258405720 Sender: news@syd.csa.com.au X-Nntp-Posting-Host: dev50 References: Organization: CSC Australia, Sydney Reply-To: donh@syd.csa.com.au Newsgroups: comp.object,comp.software-eng,comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.eiffel Date: 1997-07-24T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: A point of clarification. I wrote: : !!a.make As previously discussed, for realtime systems, the overhead of dynamic memory allocation can be removed by using a pre-allocated pool. For an HRT system, you can go a step further and remove the dynamic binding by freezing the routine used to create. Note also that: a) There is no equivalent for some of these timing assertions in Ada - in particular, timing invariants. b) For those that *are* emulatable in Ada, there is effectively *no extra* runtime overhead from using assertions compared with the equivalent Ada. Where Ada offers a built-in mechanism, as for task time-outs, the overhead is hidden within the mechanism. Don. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Don Harrison donh@syd.csa.com.au