Re: Can any one shed some light on this problem.

["chris.danx" <chris.danx@ntlworld.com>]

"simon broadhead" <sabroadhead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f076c667.0108030252.591a1812@posting.google.com...
> I am doing a research assessment at the university of Glamorgan on
> Ada. I have been asked to re-examine the language and look at how
> effective ADA would be in creating a microkernel, and to outline the
            ^
            this is the American Disabilities Association not Ada,
            I know it's being pernickity but ppl round here do
            tend to get annoyed about this.

> features which are lacking in Ada for such a project and also those
> features which neatly map a microkernel.
> I do not have much prograing skills so I am a bit lost on this.
>

Well I've not considered the method by which I'll be structuring my
micro-kernel in Ada, and it depends on the nature of scheduling;
preemptive, cooperative or fully preemptive.  An idea may be the use of
protected objects for kernel modules but this may only be appropriate for
cooperative/preemptive but not fully preemptive (a kernel mode operation
would complete with the use of protected objects and not be halted, upon a
given condition so kernel operations would not be fully preemtive.  I'm
still trying to get my head around the idea of full preemption so maybe I'm
wrong about this).  I know that for interrupts (they might not be in the
kernel proper but they are part of the OS), the likely choice is a
protected object.

> I have bean asked to examine the synchronization mechanism
> (rendez-vous) which is promoted by ADA and contrast this to the
> Dijkstra's (p/v) wait and signal mechanism.

I'm afraid I can't say much on this, someone else might be able to help.