[boost] Re: Is boost::fsm suitable for embedded systems?

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-08-30 07:38:11

Thomas Stevens <thomathoma69_at_[hidden]> writes:

> Hi,
> forgive me for my ignorance but I'm a boost newbie...
>
> The rationale document for boost::fsm states that the library should meet a 
> number of requirements, numbered from 1 to 9. Especially, the sixth requirement 
> says "support the development of arbitrarily large and complex state machines.".
>
> Ok, this may be good - I guess it is in fact good. But I'm a bit anxious that 
> this implies that the library is therefore not suitable for enviroments where 
> no unnecessary overhead is acceptable, like in many embedded applications.
>
> However, the seventh requirement indicates that my worries are unjustified 
> since it reads: "allow the user to customize all resource management so that 
> the library could be used for applications with hard real-time requirements".
>
> And further down the Rationale document one can read a section on the Resource 
> usage of Memory which looks good.
>  
> So, just to be sure, is boost::fsm suitable for the development of embedded 
> applications where constraints such as memory footprint is an issue? 
> (Hopefully, someone can answer this based on the experience of using the 
> library or by knowing the code - not by reading the documentation (like me ;-)).

Thomas,

That is a concern of mine, too.  You might be interested in
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.boost.devel/100599 and
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.boost.devel/100637, which has
the attachments announced in the earlier message.  These FSM
frameworks have minimal overhead, suitable for embedded systems.  They
also have fewer features (so far) than Andreas' design does.

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
http://www.boost-consulting.com