From: "Jeffrey R. Carter" <spam.jrcarter.not@acm.nospam.org>
Subject: Re: Ravenscar and run-time program parameters
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 16:17:47 GMT
Date: 2007-08-29T16:17:47+00:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <L_gBi.62532$Xa3.17318@attbi_s22> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <tfb3bf.09g.ln@hunter.axlog.fr>
Jean-Pierre Rosen wrote:
>
> Yes, there is a lot of pretty nice things that you can't do under
> Ravenscar constraints. That's the price for safety.
If you've ever looked at the Ravenscar implementation of a simple
bounded blocking queue between a producer and a consumer task, you know
that it's much more complex and difficult to get right than using a
protected object with 2 entries. However, for analysis of the code, the
Ravenscar version is apparently better. For some SW, that is a price
worth paying, especially if you use RavenSPARK and can be confident in
the correctness of the code. But for others, I'd be more confident of
the correctness of the version with 2 entries.
--
Jeff Carter
"Don't knock masturbation. It's sex with someone I love."
Annie Hall
45
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-08-29 16:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-08-29 7:48 Ravenscar and run-time program parameters Maciej Sobczak
2007-08-29 8:41 ` Jean-Pierre Rosen
2007-08-29 16:17 ` Jeffrey R. Carter [this message]
2007-08-30 6:52 ` Maciej Sobczak
2007-08-31 2:01 ` Jeffrey R. Carter
2007-08-31 9:01 ` Xavier Nicollin
2007-09-03 9:29 ` Maciej Sobczak
2007-08-30 9:49 ` Colin Paul Gloster
2007-08-31 1:29 ` Jeffrey R. Carter
2007-08-29 9:02 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov
2007-08-29 10:23 ` brodax
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox