Re: Ravenscar-compliant bounded buffer

[Robert A Duff <bobduff@shell01.TheWorld.com>]

"Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> writes:

> On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 10:06:51 -0400, Robert A Duff wrote:
>
>> I suppose we could argue about
>> whether the exact set of restrictions is appropriate, but the whole
>> point is to be restrictive, so the run-time system can be simplified (as
>> compared to a run-time system that supports full Ada).
>
> Aha, to ease your life. Others might have thought it was for us, poor
> users... (:-))

Yeah, I see the smiley.  But seriously, simpler run-time system means
easier to verify that it does what's intended.  I suppose that's good
for users of it, unless they need reimplement all of Ada "by hand" on
top of the supposedly simpler run-time system.

> No, seriously, the point about abstraction inversion stands.

Agreed.  As I said, it's a choice.  If you really need to put multiple
tasks on entry queues, then you probably don't want Ravenscar.  If you
can easily live with the limitations of Ravenscar, you might benefit
from the simplicity.

>...And other
> posts about tasks classification into periodic, sporadic etc only support
> it. So the question is whether these are hard limits or just the current
> state of the art.

- Bob