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-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,ac55ec18f7b0a53c X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-06-04 14:17:30 PST Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Path: archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.mathworks.com!news.mathworks.com!uunet!ash.uu.net!world!bobduff From: Robert A Duff Subject: Re: Ada and embedded applications Sender: bobduff@world.std.com (Robert A Duff) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 21:15:04 GMT References: Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.3/Emacs 19.34 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:8094 Date: 2001-06-04T21:15:04+00:00 List-Id: "Chris Campbell" writes: > One poster claimed that Ada was not used in some embedded devices because of > memory overheads for exception handling. Sounds like nonsense, but it's not completely clear what that poster meant. An exception handler typically costs a small number of words of space for certain tables. Even if those tables were huge (not likely), you don't have to use exception handlers if you don't like. It's silly to use C because when using Ada you might be tempted to use an inefficient feature that C doesn't have at all. I don't think Ada exception handlers have any *distributed* overhead -- that is, you don't pay anything substantial for the mere existence of exception handling in the language, if you don't use it. (Unless you're talking about combining exception handling and finalization -- but C doesn't have finalization, so that can't be the issue.) Perhaps that poster was talking about the space overhead of run-time checking (array bounds and the like). That overhead exists, but it's not all that high, and anyway, pragma Suppress will turn it off. >... Claiming it was used in embedded > devices in industries that had budgets that supported it (e.g. the aerospace > industry). That sounds like nonsense, too. I wouldn't believe it unless some (current) prices were quoted for comparison. - Bob