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=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,MAILING_LIST_MULTI autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,7a27b8f727dd1e47 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public Path: controlnews3.google.com!news1.google.com!news.glorb.com!news.agarik.com!news.agarik.com!usenet-fr.net!enst.fr!melchior!cuivre.fr.eu.org!melchior.frmug.org!not-for-mail From: sk Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: GNAT and no runtime Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 16:33:55 -0500 Organization: Cuivre, Argent, Or Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: lovelace.ada-france.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: melchior.cuivre.fr.eu.org 1085606984 59830 212.85.156.195 (26 May 2004 21:29:44 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@melchior.cuivre.fr.eu.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 21:29:44 +0000 (UTC) To: comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org Return-Path: User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20020828 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-20030616-p7 (Debian) at ada-france.org X-BeenThere: comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.4 Precedence: list List-Id: "Gateway to the comp.lang.ada Usenet newsgroup" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Xref: controlnews3.google.com comp.lang.ada:868 Date: 2004-05-26T16:33:55-05:00 > 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 -------------------------------------------------