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,FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,a00006d3c4735d70 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-12-27 12:17:29 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!newsfeed2.dallas1.level3.net!news.level3.com!crtntx1-snh1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!newsfeed1.easynews.com!easynews.com!easynews!small1.nntp.aus1.giganews.com!border1.nntp.aus1.giganews.com!intern1.nntp.aus1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!nntp.comcast.com!news.comcast.com.POSTED!not-for-mail NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2003 14:17:28 -0600 Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2003 15:17:27 -0500 From: "Robert I. Eachus" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Certified C compilers for safety-critical embedded systems References: <3fe00b82.90228601@News.CIS.DFN.DE> <3FE026A8.3CD6A3A@yahoo.com> <3bf1uvg2ntadvahfud2rg6ujk24sora6gr@4ax.com> <2u3auvogde8ktotlaq0ldiaska3g416gus@4ax.com> <20619edc.0312221020.3fd1b4ee@posting.google.com> <20619edc.0312222106.3b369547@posting.google.com> <45cs9hAbLc6$EAAx@phaedsys.demon.co.uk> <3fe9f0d7.104475725@News.CIS.DFN.DE> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.34.214.193 X-Trace: sv3-KjF9tRptmsk2uPdQnOomzpbmUDA5hhaH3bum6Ir6M/vXR3nPEiHW7GZOt6yAsUstl/gJ5sqQtE7NOk0!2NqsGgs3EpGYsIlnbJAJP5rhWI/9l7hPfbaFnGV8rz2nAEObU6K8asQq7CNiYA== X-Complaints-To: abuse@comcast.net X-DMCA-Complaints-To: dmca@comcast.net X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.1 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:3859 Date: 2003-12-27T15:17:27-05:00 List-Id: Stephen Leake wrote: > The version of Ada most likely to run on 8 bit machines would have no > tasking, no exceptions, and possibly no floating or fixed point, or > dynamic dispatching. That would still be a far better language than C! > Packages, generics, strong typing in general, aggregates, > representation clauses; none of these make demands on the run-time > environment, but all are very powerful programming language features. Actually, there is no reason not to support fixed-point, although I probably wouldn't support decimal types. There is no reason to omit exceptions, but I might not support exception occurances (RM 11.4.1). And again there is no reason not to support dynamic dispatching, but I would certainly limit the number of tasks and the size of task stacks. But the key question is, "Does the compiler pass all the validation tests that I care about?" This is what the VSR really addresses. Right now it is normal for a validation to list hundreds of tests as "non-applicable." Of course, most of these are for floating-point with digits > 14. Having said all that, I can't really get excited about validating Ada compilers for the i8051 or for that matter the Z-80. Every time I have used a chip that "small" on a project, complete test coverage of the machine code was not that hard to do. Typically the chip implements a finite-state machine with at most a couple of dozen states, and it is easier to tie the generated code to the state diagram in the specification than to prove both the source code and the compiler. -- Robert I. Eachus "The war on terror is a different kind of war, waged capture by capture, cell by cell, and victory by victory. Our security is assured by our perseverance and by our sure belief in the success of liberty." -- George W. Bush