Re: Ada automatic code generation for Simulink models

[Simon Wright <simon@pushface.org>]

John Kern <jkern3@NOSPAM.visteon.com> writes (reordered to convention):

> Simon Wright wrote:
> > 
> > John Kern <jkern3@NOSPAM.visteon.com> writes:
> > 
> > > I see that the Mathworks is dropping support for automatically
> > > generating Ada code from Simulink models.  Has anyone from this
> > > group tried this product for developing control software and found
> > > it to be less than useful?  There seems to be a big push in the
> > > automotive industry for auto code generation of embedded
> > > controllers.  Too bad that we seem to be stuck with C.
> > 
> > I don't see quite why it matters, if you trust the generator? The C is
> > likely to be pretty readable (well, I guess I mean regularly
> > structured). Unless you get to modify the generated code ..
> 
> I guess what your are saying is to go ahead and allow code generators to
> use the "Universal Assembly" language, and use Ada for only the parts
> that cannot be modeled.  The auto industry is endeavoring to model the
> whole ECU in either Simulink or UML, leaving no room or need for
> generated Ada code.  However we still get bogged down with the
> standardization and modeling of the tasking kernel, the unsafe C
> constructs and MISRA compliance, weak typing and the representations of
> variables, etc. which didn't seem to be that big a problem when using
> Ada.

I did say "if you trust the generator". Clearly generating Ada
provides some external check on the generated code.

I would personally have little problem with a generated C model called
up by Ada (though your mention of "tasking kernel" does give me
pause. Does the generated code use this tasking kernel? perhaps that's
a new can of worms).