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,f2aa0ddde84d1b0a X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news2.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!wns14feed!worldnet.att.net!attbi_s21.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail From: "Jeffrey R. Carter" User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.10 (Windows/20070221) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: GNAT verses A# for soft-realtime system References: <4uudnaJ7BJK8g4XbnZ2dnUVZ_t-mnZ2d@comcast.com> <2IWRh.39480$_c5.25338@attbi_s22> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.201.97.213 X-Complaints-To: abuse@mchsi.com X-Trace: attbi_s21 1176055453 12.201.97.213 (Sun, 08 Apr 2007 18:04:13 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2007 18:04:13 GMT Organization: AT&T ASP.att.net Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2007 18:04:13 GMT Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:14838 Date: 2007-04-08T18:04:13+00:00 List-Id: Chip and Allie Orange wrote: > > My question was also, does .net have something about it that makes it a poor > environment for soft real-time systems? Especially, does it produce code > that's noticeably slow, or that garbage collects in some way that would make > it less than desirable for real-time systems with very limited CPU > resources? I have no experience with .net, so I cannot say. I understand that it includes garbage collection, so the usual caveats about using garbage collection in timing-critical SW would seem to apply. > Do the additional features of 2005 target real-time systems? Some do; some don't. In the former category, there are task-termination handlers, interfaces that must be implemented by tasks or protected objects, and timing events and handlers, among others. > Finally, are the products from compiler vendors (Aionix and RR) that much > better than GNAT/GPL? It depends on how you define "that much better". GNAT GPL is based on a mature Ada-95 compiler, but implements most of the new version. The commercial compilers are Ada-95 compilers. If you restrict yourself to unchanged Ada-95 features, then they're probably comparable. Otherwise, you're comparing apples to pears. GNAT GPL has a number of known errors in the new features; the commercial compilers don't have the new features. You have to work around the errors in GNAT GPL; you're unlikely to encounter that with a supported compiler. -- Jeff Carter "Go and boil your bottoms." Monty Python & the Holy Grail 01