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 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,a1fc1cb752cac5ba X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-09-02 02:11:01 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!193.213.112.26!newsfeed1.ulv.nextra.no!nextra.com!news.powertech.no!nntp.newmedia.no!newsfeed1.enitel.no!news.netpower.no!not-for-mail From: "David Brown" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Gnat cross-compiler for m68k, PowerPc Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2002 11:09:12 +0200 Organization: NetPower AS Message-ID: References: <87vg5rdib6.fsf@inf.enst.fr> NNTP-Posting-Host: 212.33.158.19 X-Trace: news.netpower.no 1030957401 16784 212.33.158.19 (2 Sep 2002 09:03:21 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@netpower.no NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2002 09:03:21 +0000 (UTC) X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:28651 Date: 2002-09-02T11:09:12+02:00 List-Id: "Samuel Tardieu" wrote in message news:87vg5rdib6.fsf@inf.enst.fr... > >>>>> "David" == David Brown writes: > > David> I'm not expecting to use any OS on the systems -although it > David> might be interesting to try RTEMS, I'd also like to be able to > David> build Ada programs that are not dependant on any OS. > > Back in 1996-1998, our team used RTEMS + GNAT on a Motorola 68360 > (quite similar to the 68332 you are thinking of) robot and it was a > great success. Both GNAT and RTEMS performed very well. > I'm definitely going to give this a go - it looks like RTEMS is going to be the easiest way to get things going with Ada on my systems. It may turn out that I don't use RTEMS in the end, but I'll get the tools from there (and it may turn out that I *do* use RTEMS, even for my C programming). > David> Out of curiosity, is Ada practical for smaller chips? We also > David> use the msp430 (16-bit) and the avr (8-bit), both of which have > David> gcc ports. Is it realistic to use Ada for these chips? A > David> serious RTOS like RTEMS is certainly out of the question here. > > Even if other persons will say it fits well, I would personally > recommend against using Ada on the smallest devices, as you may easily > get frustrated by the tiny amount of code you will be able to put on > board (the same holds for C). If you have to use a smaller processor, > you may feel more comfortable with a language such as Forth which is > closer to the metal and lets you use all the (low) power available (at > the expense of not having all the nice Ada features such as type > checking). > Forth has always struct me as a nice idea, but it is in desperate need of an overhall. But I'm used to small micros - I've programmed many systems where the only practical language is assembly, given the space and the CPU architecture. However, devices like the avr and msp430 are well suiting to higher-level languages (at least C), and there are parts with 64 k or 128 k flash, which is plenty of code space. But I'll try things out on the bigger 68k device first, and see whether Ada is something I can use to improve my work (my guess is it will, if I put in enough time learning it).