TEAM-ADA Archives

Team Ada: Ada Programming Language Advocacy

TEAM-ADA@LISTSERV.ACM.ORG

Options: Use Forum View

Use Proportional Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Sender:
"Team Ada: Ada Advocacy Issues (83 & 95)" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
From:
Tucker Taft <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Tue, 26 Nov 1996 07:04:35 -0500
X-To:
Reply-To:
Tucker Taft <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (27 lines)
> Annex H using pragma Restrictions is supposed to allow one to build
> reduced run-times. If anybody wants specific new parameters to the
> Restrictions pragma 'blessed' to encourage bettr tailoring, please
> let the HRG know! Brian.

Although it is not clearly associated with the run-time, when
we have looked into restrictions for very small embedded systems,
we have disallowed any dynamic-sized objects.  On our compiler,
this would eliminate the need for what we call the "secondary stack."
By "dynamic sized," I mean an object whose size is not known at compile
time at the point of its declaration.  It is still OK to pass it to
subprograms that don't know its size statically.  The critical requirement
is to know its size at the point of declaration.

Hence, I would recommend that we add a restriction, "No_Dynamic_Sized_Objects"
or equivalent.

> Brian Wichmann                Tele: +44 181 943 6976 (direct)
> National Physical Laboratory   FAX: +44 181 977 7091
> Teddington Middlesex           e-mail: [log in to unmask]
> TW11 0LW
> UK
>
> WWW: http://www.npl.co.uk/npl/cise/welcome.html

-Tucker Taft [log in to unmask]

ATOM RSS1 RSS2