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: 103376,21bae80fd7acfdb2 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news2.google.com!news1.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!nx02.iad01.newshosting.com!newshosting.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!newsswitch.lcs.mit.edu!nntp.TheWorld.com!not-for-mail From: Robert A Duff Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Ravenscar and portability Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 19:08:18 -0400 Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA Message-ID: References: <1188373938.765288.214720@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: shell01.theworld.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: pcls6.std.com 1188515302 22757 192.74.137.71 (30 Aug 2007 23:08:22 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@TheWorld.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 23:08:22 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Gnus/5.1008 (Gnus v5.10.8) Emacs/21.3 (irix) Cancel-Lock: sha1:arc0O9Zwon59qrBIlC7lbXLYGH0= Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:1616 Date: 2007-08-30T19:08:18-04:00 List-Id: Maciej Sobczak 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