* some topics for discussion
@ 1998-06-26 15:00 Brendan Kehoe
1998-06-26 22:33 ` Todd Hoff
0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: Brendan Kehoe @ 1998-06-26 15:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: c++-embedded
Hi! I've been meaning to send this msg, to try to get conversation going on
some of the items that prompted the creation of this list.
It'd be really interesting to hear people's thoughts on:
* what are the primary reasons that many embedded developers tend not to use
C++ for their applications or other programs?
* which particular language features are commonly problematic for an
embedded system? e.g., the implementation of templates in some compilers
can make code size difficult to accept, particularly for a system with a
limited memory footprint.
* if there are ways that exception handling can be used without too much
runtime cost?
* which tasks or bodies of code are very, very commonly implemented often
for an embedded application, that might prove suitable to be part of a
common C++ library to do the same? (With abstraction as necessary.)
* if there are optimizations that could be applied (but aren't yet, or are
only in a limited sense) to compensate for the needs of an RTOS or
similar environment?
B
--
Brendan Kehoe brendan@cygnus.com
Cygnus Solutions, Sunnyvale, CA +1 408 542 9600
Web page: http://www.zen.org/~brendan/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
* Re: some topics for discussion
1998-06-26 15:00 some topics for discussion Brendan Kehoe
@ 1998-06-26 22:33 ` Todd Hoff
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: Todd Hoff @ 1998-06-26 22:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: brendan; +Cc: c++-embedded
Brendan Kehoe wrote:
> * what are the primary reasons that many embedded developers tend not to use
> C++ for their applications or other programs?
It's in large part cultural. I came to the embedded world from writing
large apps on workstations. Most of the embedded software people were
more hardware oriented. We had very little in common. Fortunately
we could divide the work along the lines of hardware/ISR/driver and
the rest the software. OO and C++ were seen a slow, bloated, and
unecessary.
> * if there are ways that exception handling can be used without too much
> runtime cost?
As exceptions haven't been thread safe so i really haven't had a chance
to consider this :-)
> * if there are optimizations that could be applied (but aren't yet, or are
> only in a limited sense) to compensate for the needs of an RTOS or
> similar environment?
A big issue is changing configurations on the fly without
rebooting. This is very difficult and is very common.
------------------------------------------------------------------
tmh@possibility.com http://www.possibility.com/Tmh
Desperate measures require the invention of desperate times.
-- Todd Hoff
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~1998-06-26 22:33 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
1998-06-26 15:00 some topics for discussion Brendan Kehoe
1998-06-26 22:33 ` Todd Hoff
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).