From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00
	autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Path: 
 eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!mx02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Simon Clubley <clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: STM32F4 GNAT Run Time System - roadmap
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2015 18:22:39 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID: <n4cftd$g4h$1@dont-email.me>
References: <lyzj49qecx.fsf@pushface.org> <ml96i2$3qs$2@dont-email.me>
 <lya8pnh1dq.fsf@pushface.org> <n45e84$rpr$1@loke.gir.dk>
 <n49suh$en8$1@dont-email.me> <n4ab1d$c4c$1@loke.gir.dk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2015 18:22:39 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: mx02.eternal-september.org;
 posting-host="e0f039eae70a40fd61f3dbea9f24a33d";
	logging-data="16529"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";
	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/usURGhzo9DagAQ/fs4R/qMS4Wa6NjnRo="
User-Agent: slrn/0.9.9p1 (Linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:AH2wz08znK48QdJP5YvtNPtmP3g=
Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:28760
Date: 2015-12-10T18:22:39+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 2015-12-09, Randy Brukardt <randy@rrsoftware.com> wrote:
> "Simon Clubley" <clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> wrote in 
> message news:n49suh$en8$1@dont-email.me...
>>
>> What's the general feeling within the ARG about the related AI12-0127-1
>> partial aggregate notation proposal, especially as it applies to updating
>> bitfields within device registers ? How likely is that to happen ?
>
> The holdup is that the proposal only covers record aggregates. The similar 
> SPARK feature includes all kinds of aggregates, and of course we'd like to 
> be able to replace the SPARK feature entirely. The problem being that there 
> isn't an obvious extension for array aggregates (it's much messier once 
> multi-dimensional arrays are considered), so it's back in the lab at the 
> moment. I think there is a good chance that it will be adopted down the 
> road, but it's definitely not a slam-dunk.
>

Thanks Randy.

It would be a shame if it was rejected because of SPARK. Even when
restricted to records it still brings benefits to Ada code, especially
when doing things like device register bitfield manipulation.

Simon.

-- 
Simon Clubley, clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP
Microsoft: Bringing you 1980s technology to a 21st century world