From: Robert A Duff <bobduff@shell01.TheWorld.com>
Subject: Re: Ravenscar and portability
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 19:08:18 -0400
Date: 2007-08-30T19:08:18-04:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <wcc1wdkipst.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 1188373938.765288.214720@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com
Maciej Sobczak <see.my.homepage@gmail.com> writes:
> The Ravenscar profile contains the No_Implicit_Heap_Allocations
> constraint.
>
> The problem is that the operations that might require implicit heap
> allocation are implementation-defined. This means that programs can be
> declared as Ravenscar-compliant *only* in the context of some chosen
> Ada implementation.
>
> Is that right?
Yes. But in practise, most implementations are pretty uniform in this
regard, so it's pretty portable.
I believe all of Ada's features, excluding some predefined library
units, can be implemented without implicit heap allocation.
But I'm not even sure how to precisely define "implicit heap
allocation".
The Strings.Unbounded does heap allocation. Is it "implicit"?
- Bob
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-08-30 23:08 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-08-29 7:52 Ravenscar and portability Maciej Sobczak
2007-08-30 23:08 ` Robert A Duff [this message]
2007-08-31 7:23 ` Maciej Sobczak
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox