Re: Ada compiler differences

[Mark H Johnson <mark_h_johnson@raytheon.com>]

Larry Kilgallen wrote:
> In article <YDwdd.53169$JG5.650210@news20.bellglobal.com>, "Warren W. Gay VE3WWG" <ve3wwg@cogeco.ca> writes:
> 
>>Mark H Johnson wrote:
>>
>>>Larry Kilgallen wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <WSWcd.8$V_2.4@dfw-service2.ext.ray.com>, Mark H Johnson 
>>>><mark_h_johnson@raytheon.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>[snip big endian TCP/IP example]
>>>
>>>
>>>>>That particular issue has nothing to do with Ada; you have the same 
>>>>>problem with C or other languages.
>>>>
>>>>In particular, it has to do with the fact that TCP/IP was devised on
>>>>an ad-hoc basis rather than using an underlying marshalling technique
>>>>such as promoted by ASN.1.
>>
>>The marshalling technique required by ASN.1 requires that all hosts
>>do "marshalling", whereas big endian machines do not require it
>>at all (assuming size matches).
> 
> 
> And as someone who frequents little-endian machines, I can choose some
> non-IP protocol a more friendly (to me) one that was designed with no
> thought to endian portability.

I'll repeat my question [which was snipped in this sequence] since it 
apparently has been ignored....

I am not quite sure how this comment is relevant to the OP's question on 
writing portable software. Are you suggesting to the OP that they use 
something like an ASN.1 library instead of Posix functions? If so, how 
is that "better" for the problem I described?

I raised this question because I recognize in many situations, you have 
to meet an established interface specification. You imply above that 
ignoring the interface (or choosing a different one) is somehow OK. 
Please explain your rationale.

   --Mark