TEAM-ADA Archives

Team Ada: Ada Programming Language Advocacy

TEAM-ADA@LISTSERV.ACM.ORG

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show HTML 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:
Ken Garlington <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Tue, 26 Nov 1996 07:28:33 +0000
X-cc:
Organization:
Lockheed Martin Tactical Aircraft Systems
Reply-To:
Ken Garlington <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (33 lines)
Tucker Taft wrote:
>
> 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.

It sounds like Intermetrics has studied this issue in the past. Is there a
white paper, or something like that, documenting your work? If so, this could
be a good input for Sy Wong's proposal..

>
> > 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]

--
LMTAS - "Our Brand Means Quality"
For more info, see http://www.lmtas.com or http://www.lmco.com

ATOM RSS1 RSS2