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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 115aec,f41f1f25333fa601 X-Google-Attributes: gid115aec,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,a3ca574fc2007430 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Richard Riehle Subject: Re: Ada and Automotive Industry Date: 1996/12/11 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 203543500 references: <579i9d$ch0@news.nyu.edu> <580ec9$nq0$1@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au> content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII organization: National University, San Diego mime-version: 1.0 newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.realtime Date: 1996-12-11T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: On 3 Dec 1996, Richard A. O'Keefe wrote: With regard to the discussion regarding the I8051 and Ada, [ snipped introductory stuff ] this thoughtful observation regarding the potential of Ada for 8051: > What I have in mind here is that > - there is a fair bit of stuff that happens at *compile* time in Ada > which is useful for improving the maintainability of code. This > stuff makes Ada *compilers* harder to write than C *compilers*, but > it need have no adverse effects on *code* size. Agree. This is an important point in favor of Ada. > - there is a fair bit of stuff in *standard* Ada (detailed control over > sizes and layouts of objects, even detailed control over placement of > variables) which could be extremely useful for 8051 programming (because > of its non-uniform memory and the importance of packing when you have > so little memory), which is *not* standard in C. One such feature is > machine-code insertions. Yes. Machine code insertion capability would be essential. So too would a set of 8051-specific packages that map to the architecture. Such a set of packages could make Ada quite attractive if they were to encapsulate the standard idioms of 8051 programming. > I therefore believe that it would be perfectly possible to design a > proper subset of Ada 95---call it Ada 8051---such that any legal Ada 8051 > library unit would be a legal Ada 95 library unit with the same meaning, > but sufficiently restricted to permit the automatic generation of code at > least as good as C for the 8051 (probably better), with smooth escapes to > machine code where necessary, but machine code subject to encapsulation. Ada-8051? HmmmMMMMMmmmmm. C'est possible? This would make a good project for some graduate student doing a thesis in real-time embedded software. Anyone advising such a student at the moment? Remember that several commercially available Ada 83 compilers were originally completed to satisfy the requirements for a master's degree. Ada-8051 might best be first developed this way. Richard Riehle