Re: GNAT and no runtime

[sk <noname@myob.com>]

 > The author use the "pragma Supress (All_Checks)" and don't
 > raise exception so obviously there is no such problem than
 > I have.

 > But a real OS made in Ada should use the builtin checks and
 > generate exception handling code, at least during the
 > development stage.

As the author, I am aware of its limitations :-) But, how can
you NOT suppress all checks until you have written the code
to provide the checks.

How can you have builtin's before you have the OS ? It seems
you are arguing the old philisophical conundrum of the chicken
and the egg.

 From my perspective, the author of the mini/toy/silly kernel,
you have to build the hardware coordination next and then
you build a run-time which can interface with the compiler.

My philosophy was/is based in the Intel architecture (i386
and above) which incorporates 4 "rings" of possible kernel
security which I would arrange loosely as follows ...

Ring:
1) Hardware
2) Coordinator/Executive
3) Kernel-to-User interface
4) User Space

... the software exceptions would tend to go in 3 primarily
with hardware exceptions going into 2.

So, I argue, that until you have a more definite CPU/OS
architecture, and a well defined idea of system-services,
expecting to use the GNAT-Run-Time (and porting it and
perhaps supplying a cross-compiler) becomes premature.


-- 
-------------------------------------------------
-- Merge vertically for real address
--
--     s n p @ t . o
--      k i e k c c m
-------------------------------------------------