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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,6405eefbf080daa6
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Robert A Duff <bobduff@world.std.com>
Subject: Re: Is an RTOS Required for Ada?
Date: 1999/05/19
Message-ID: <wccogjh80os.fsf@world.std.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 479686862
Sender: bobduff@world.std.com (Robert A Duff)
References: <373B2927.7B22F898@pop.safetran.com>
 <19990514155120.03860.00000396@ng-cr1.aol.com> <7hmc18$jr6$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1999-05-19T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Robert Dewar <dewar@gnat.com> writes:

> For example, in GNORT mode, the compiler will generate an open
> loop for a block copy, to avoid calling the bcopy routine in
> the run-time. Now of course this is a trivial routine, and in
> a normal circumstance there is no reason not to include it. But
> in a certified environment, you don't want even one byte of
> non-certified code around, and GNORT meets this requirement
> inexpensively and convincingly by having no bytes of run-time
> code of any kind around.

That makes no sense to me.  Why couldn't you just certify those run-time
routines that you use?  Isn't it easier to certify the bcopy routine,
than to certify many inlined copies of the same algorithm?

- Bob
-- 
Change robert to bob to get my real email address.  Sorry.