Re: GNAT Professional machine code listings (was: An Ada Advice Inquiry)

[<adaworks@sbcglobal.net>]

"Larry Kilgallen" <Kilgallen@SpamCop.net> wrote in message 
news:vFqGwaGsZMZN@eisner.encompasserve.org...
>
> The last I read in this newsgroup. ACT was inexorably opposed to the
> generation of machine code listing files.  For us this makes their
> offering a non-starter.  We need to be able to have a customer for
> our commercial product send back a stack dump from a production release
> of the software.  Then we need to be able to use that information to
> see exactly which instruction went south.  That makes GNAT Pro
> a non-starter as I see it.
>
I remember the HP 64000 (now probably obsolete) that allowed us
to emulate the MIL-STD 1750 at the instruction set level. We could
watch the entire program run side-by-side with the source code and
traceback from breakpoints.   This allowed detailed inspection of
the code at a very detailed level.    I think inspection is still a good
approach for at least part of the program evaluation process.  For
embedded systems, such as those on the 1750, it was especially
helpful.

I still like to be able to see the underlying executable in at least
an Assembler format.    I recall that the TLD compiler allowed
this, as well.   Hmmmmmm.  TLD.   Does anyone remember
Terry Dunbar and his compiler for the 1750?

Richard Riehle