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: 103376,95dad97c56f9de95 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-09-25 08:10:56 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!ucberkeley!btnet-peer1!btnet-peer0!btnet!news5-gui.server.ntli.net!ntli.net!news6-win.server.ntlworld.com.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "chris.danx" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada References: Subject: Re: Curiousity: pragma No_Run_Time for Gnat X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 16:05:45 +0100 NNTP-Posting-Host: 62.253.8.112 X-Complaints-To: abuse@ntlworld.com X-Trace: news6-win.server.ntlworld.com 1001430351 62.253.8.112 (Tue, 25 Sep 2001 16:05:51 BST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 16:05:51 BST Organization: ntlworld News Service Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:13340 Date: 2001-09-25T16:05:45+01:00 List-Id: "M. A. Alves" wrote in message news:mailman.1001428823.15394.comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org... > The Meanings of "Pure" II > > Sergey wrote: > > Well, GNAT has to generate the object files in *some* format, and > > unless you have a cross-compiling version, it'll be ELF on Linux and > > PE (COFF) on Win32. > > You mean there is no plain x86 code? A simple sequence of machine code > instructions? "Pure" code? Pure code being that which does not contain interrupts/os calls? Or pure in the sense that it is not in an object file? Or that which is not protected mode code? > Is the good old Van Neuman architecture at risk? Why would it be? Von Neuman may die due to something like CA-effectant computers (which would be ironic) or the RAW architecture but they're immature. Object files do not present a threat to Von Neumann machines, in fact they're part of why it's so popular (they make things easier, hence aiding popularity). > (I am no guru with object code formats, but there must be a neutral one, > with no "brand" on it (except the processor's). I assume ELF or PE or > COFF is not such a thing, or else this discussion is meaningless.) No. You misunderstand the function of an object file. It's intended to provide a structure to a file, and contains information that allows a linker or loader to locate routines. All formats are technically neutral, it's just that on windows COFF is used more than ELF and on Linux the reverse. > Personally for the hobby OS in Ada I am only interested in a "pure" > approach. No fancy loaders, no branded formats, in sum no dependencies: > pure = truly free. I suppose you could get a bootstrap to load a plain binary file, but you'd still need to compile to ELF on Linux, or COFF on windows and link your modules together into the plain format. However the problem is that it removes structure from the file and *could* complicate matters later. I really don't understand what you mean by "pure" or why Object File Formats are so bad. Chris