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=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Path: 
 eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Adam Jensen <hanzer@riseup.net>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Getting started with bare-board development
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2016 18:35:45 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID: <o0dhnh$pbs$1@dont-email.me>
References: <o05g4n$q11$1@dont-email.me> <o06obm$u1b$1@dont-email.me>
 <o07f4o$9r4$1@dont-email.me> <o08oi5$bo4$1@dont-email.me>
 <o0agtr$2gg$1@dont-email.me> <o0akh0$fp4$1@dont-email.me>
 <o0anol$qna$1@dont-email.me> <o0bump$1lph$1@gioia.aioe.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2016 23:35:13 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: mx02.eternal-september.org;
 posting-host="00d608ea9175bce12524a6c84b7789f6";
	logging-data="25980"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";
	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18gPjyFFQAfXnJ7Or7Tu9aD"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/45.4.0
In-Reply-To: <o0bump$1lph$1@gioia.aioe.org>
Cancel-Lock: sha1:VftODfYTONqDRsLowNv6V4hDQGc=
Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:32316
Date: 2016-11-14T18:35:45-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 11/14/2016 04:04 AM, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
> I think you are confusing things a bit. If you have computing hardware
> mocked you are doing simulation and the time is simulation time. If the
> peripheral hardware is real or partially real it is hardware-in-the-loop
> simulation (HIL). HIL is usually real-time because. What people are
> saying is that HIL is much more cost efficient developing platform than
> some embedded board. Furthermore Ada is ideal for HIL because Ada
> software is portable. So you can develop almost everything on the PC and
> test almost everything in the loop. Then if some hardware (except the
> board itself) is too expensive or difficult to use, it can be simulated
> (mocked) in turn. Which is especially important when you want to test
> some catastrophic or improbable scenarios.

Yeah, I can imagine this stack (basic):
 workstation's hardware - operating system - run-time system - program

And this stack:
 embedded hardware - embedded run-time system - RT-program

And this stack:
 RT-program
 embedded run-time system
 emulator (Qemu)
 operating system
 workstation

But this setup is confusing:
 RT-program
 embedded target run-time system
 simulated hardware
 native run-time system
 operating system
 workstation