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: 103376,c30642befcd7bf85 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) Subject: Re: New GNAT ports (was Re: Ada and Automotive Industry) Date: 1997/01/07 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 208462080 references: <5asvku$jtu$1@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au> organization: New York University newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-01-07T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Robert Duff asks (about a possible 8051 subset) How would this subset compare to the Ada subset embedded in SPARK? not comparable at all. The SPARK subset is not only aimed at reducing runtime complexity, but also at reducing certification effort. If you are interested in reducing runtime costs, then you are concerned with things that have code generation impact (for instance, floating-point might be out of the question, but generic instantiation and child packages are irrelevant). But if you are interested in certification, then floating-point may be fine if you can find an acceptable formal model for floating-point, but you may well decide to eliminate generics and child units on the grounds that the complicate the formal models without providing any fudnamental increase in expressive power. By fudnamental here, I mean that you can always do generics yourself if you have to for example,