On 07/02/2013 10:13 AM, Mark Morgan Lloyd wrote:
The problem there is that once you've got something with the
complexity of the Linux kernel and a standard language's RTL, you're a
very long way from being able to prove either the static or the
dynamic correctness of a system.
That is obviously correct. But as millions of embedded devices
successfully do run on Linux, I recon that you can choose a decent Linux
distribution for the job. Here again, the BBB is advantageous, as it
features a chip by TI and TI explicitly and actively does support
embedded Linux on this chip.
Now I obviously accept that strict proof-of-correctness of any
realistic system is virtually impossible, but I don't think that
adding subsystems and layers implementing features that are
non-critical but have the capability of interfering with critical code
is desirable in an embedded system.
Understandably.
Something like RTLinux with the equivalent of a PLC implemented at the
core level is obviously one solution to this sort of problem.
This again is why I vote for the BBB. The TI CPU chip used, features two
ARM M3 CPUs with their own additional memory space additional to the A8
main CPU. So you can ruin non-realtime Linux and at the same time use
the M3 subsystems tor hard realtime stuff with lower guarantee-able
latency than any realtime-Linux can provide.
IMHO_this_ (both providing a complex (Linux) System for communication
and standard stuff plus very low latency hard realtime) is a very common
request with modern embedded appliances.
-Michael
_______________________________________________
fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
