Re: Isn't this in favour of Ada??

[Marin David Condic <nobody@noplace.com>]

Well, if I thought about it long enough, I could probably figure out 
some way of disconnecting the interrupt from the code it has to trigger 
using only existing Ada mechanisms. What I fear is that it would 
introduce either too much inefficiency or not provide for 
uninterruptability that may be needed by an ISR. I suppose it wouldn't 
hurt too much if you actually shielded the ISR beneath some hardware 
abstraction layer & kept it small, providing most of the "Real" work has 
to happen above it. (Let it grab data and propogate a message of some 
sort?) But then you're really not making a provision to run all of the 
software for an embedded system on some workstation platform in an 
off-line way.

It would be better with a language mechanism, but I don't know if it is 
either too complicated or of too narrow an interest to be worth a 
language update.

MDC

Ed Falis wrote:
> It's certainly possible to import the "kill" routine to raise a 
> signal.   But of course you would have a different "interrupt" number 
> for native and  target, as well as needing explicit code somewhere to 
> call kill.  So the  code would have to be slightly different.  But I 
> can't really think of any  magic that could hide that.
> 
> - Ed

-- 
======================================================================
Marin David Condic
I work for: http://www.belcan.com/
My project is: http://www.jsf.mil/NSFrames.htm

Send Replies To: m   o   d   c @ a   m   o   g
                    c   n   i       c   .   r

     "The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting. It has
      been found difficult; and left untried."

         --  G. K. Chesterton
======================================================================