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-Thread: 103376,df1a7f1c3c3bc77e X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!newshub.sdsu.edu!newscon04.news.prodigy.net!prodigy.net!newsdst01.news.prodigy.net!prodigy.com!postmaster.news.prodigy.com!newssvr22.news.prodigy.net.POSTED!4988f22a!not-for-mail From: Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada References: Subject: Re: GNAT Professional machine code listings (was: An Ada Advice Inquiry) X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: 70.134.133.137 X-Complaints-To: abuse@prodigy.net X-Trace: newssvr22.news.prodigy.net 1178461591 ST000 70.134.133.137 (Sun, 06 May 2007 10:26:31 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 06 May 2007 10:26:31 EDT Organization: AT&T http://yahoo.sbc.com X-UserInfo1: SCSYQN_@FS@QBTLYYZH@^SXBUSXB@DTMNHWB_EYLJZ]BGIELNVUEAE[YETZPIWWI[FCIZA^NBFXZ_D[BFNTCNVPDTNTKHWXKB@X^B_OCJLPZ@ET_O[G\XSG@E\G[ZKVLBL^CJINM@I_KVIOR\T_M_AW_M[_BWU_HFA_]@A_A^SGFAUDE_DFTMQPFWVW[QPJN Date: Sun, 6 May 2007 07:26:00 -0800 Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:15595 Date: 2007-05-06T07:26:00-08:00 List-Id: "Larry Kilgallen" 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