Re: Ada GC
13 Feb 1996 00:12:18 -0500

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
[16 earlier articles]
Re: Ada GC (1996-02-09)
Re: Ada GC (1996-02-09)
Re: Ada GC (1996-02-09)
Re: Ada GC (1996-02-09)
Re: Ada GC (1996-02-10)
Re: Ada GC (1996-02-13)
Re: Ada GC (1996-02-13)
Re: Ada GC (1996-02-13)
Re: Ada GC (1996-02-13)
Re: Ada GC (1996-02-13)
Re: Ada GC (1996-02-14)
Re: Ada GC (1996-02-14)
| List of all articles for this month |

Newsgroups: comp.compilers,comp.lang.ada,comp.realtime
Followup-To: comp.compilers,comp.realtime
Date: 13 Feb 1996 00:12:18 -0500
Organization: Massachusetts Corporation for Educational Telecommunciations, Inc.
References: 96-01-037 96-02-030 96-02-091
Keywords: Ada, GC

[Courtesy cc: sent to author.]

Kevin Weise <> wrote:
> I admit I haven't read the specifications and definitions of all new
> languages for the past twenty years. But I have *never* seen a language
> specification that did this, except for certain assemblers that told you
> how many machine cycles each instruction required to execute. I would
> certainly appreciate some reference to a real-time programming language
> that provides as part of its requirements/specifications bounds on the
> various primitive operations it provides. and various technical
reports from the real-time group at UMASS on Spring C. I don't recall
TR numbers offhand, but can find them if you can't.

You can specify hard deadlines for sections of code. There are
limitations (one is that the proof-of-concept implementation relies on
the architecture manual's specification of instruction execution times
(which are often wrong -- you need to design test to get better
readings -- one's that assume worst-case scenarious (flushing the
pipeline, etc..)).

anyway, that's one such example.

I think this is getting off of comp.lang.ada Follow-ups directed to
comp.compilers and comp.realtime

-- Jason

Post a followup to this message

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.