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: 103376,478e1d17253812d0
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: Existence of Ada95 compiler for embedded 80x86?
Date: 1997/02/20
Message-ID: <dewar.856496144@merv>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 220349228
References: <bond-ya023680001802971231460001@nntp.ucs.ubc.ca>
 <dewar.856320255@merv> <E5vK9w.6I@jvdsys.nextjk.stuyts.nl>
Organization: New York University
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-02-20T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Jerry says

<<I'm already on record saying I love GNAT, however:

the delay implementation of GNAT may work as intented by the RM, it is really
unsuitable for serious DOS programming.

This has been discussed often enough (and I've spend enough time building
work arounds) that I'm not inclined to yet again post samples.

If you feel differently, please prove this.>>


Certainly when I say that delay works in DOS, I do mean that it works
according to the description in the RM. Not clear what else it might
mean. Whether or not the particular implementation choices are suitable
for a particular program is of cours not decided by that. Certainly a lot
of ppeople are doing serious programming with the DOS version of GNAT.
However, I don't think that anyone would expect the DJGPP implementation
to be a reasonable candidate for an ebmedded 80x86 (as per the subject
line).

If you simply mean that you need a finer resolution for delay in the
DOS port, that is of course easily achieved, but it is not something
for which we have had any customer demand so far.