AI12-0128 (was: STM32F4 GNAT Run Time System - roadmap)

[Simon Wright <simon@pushface.org>]

"Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com> writes:

> "Simon Wright" <simon@pushface.org> wrote in message 
> news:lya8pnh1dq.fsf@pushface.org...
>> ...I've not done any evaluation yet aside from noting that they
>> generate the GNAT-specific Volatile_Full_Access aspect, which is
>> noted in the 'under development' version of the GCC docs (so, will
>> likely be in GCC 6). Maybe plain Volatile will do (but users would
>> have to remember to access the whole register explicitly, rather than
>> leaving it up to the compiler to Do The Right Thing); that would be
>> an easy-enough patch.
>
> The ARG has decided on a different direction to fix the problem
> addressed by Volatile_Full_Access; essentially, accesses to
> non-volatile components of atomic objects have to be accessed with a
> read-modify-write cycle. (See AI12-0128-1.) Various parts of Annex C
> will be rewritten to make that make sense.

I see that !example, 4 lines from the end, says
   if Status_Register.Read then -- Illegal.
- should be .Ready

Reading this (several times), I think the effect is that if I mark a
composite object as Exact_Size_Only, and want to change a component, I
must explicitly read-object-to-temp; modify-temp; write-temp-to-object ?

At the moment I've said e.g.

   type Device_Registers is record
      S0 : Interfaces.Unsigned_16;
      S1 : Interfaces.Unsigned_16;
      L0 : Interfaces.Unsigned_32;
      L1 : Interfaces.Unsigned_32;
   end record
   with Volatile;

and let the components inherit the Volatile.

With the new aspect, I think I'd need to say e.g.

   type Device_Registers is record
      S0 : Interfaces.Unsigned_16 with Exact_Size_Only;
      S1 : Interfaces.Unsigned_16 with Exact_Size_Only;
      L0 : Interfaces.Unsigned_32 with Exact_Size_Only;
      L1 : Interfaces.Unsigned_32 with Exact_Size_Only;
   end record
   with Volatile;

?