[ I changed the title so that the main topic -- volatile and C++ -- not be diluted ]
Robert Dewar: > Paul Koning wrote: >>>>>>>"Marcin" == Marcin Dalecki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >> >> Marcin> On 2005-04-15, at 20:18, Mike Stump wrote: >> >> >> On Thursday, April 14, 2005, at 08:48 PM, Marcin Dalecki wrote: >> >>> Templates are a no-go for a well known and well defined subset >> >>> for C++ for embedded programming known commonly as well embedded >> >>> C++. >> >> My god, you didn't actually buy into that did you? Hint, it was >> >> is, and always will be a joke. >> >> Marcin> You dare to explain what's so funny about it? >> >> The fact that many of the C++ features omitted from "embedded C++" are >> perfectly valid and useful for embedded systems programming, and cause >> neither space nor speed problems in the hands of reasonably competent >> programmers. > > One other driver here is certification issues. For example, there are > severe concerns about safety critical certification of dynamic > dispatching, and templates (and Ada generics) cause trouble with some > certification requirements and formal verification tools. I don't know > if these considerations played a part in embedded C++ design, but one > would think that this would be a consideration. C++ templates do not involve dynamic dispatching (I would suspect the same to be true for Ada generics) so I do not understand your comment. Maybe there are unsopken assumptions? -- Gaby > >
