Re: Sequential IO on OpenVMS (was: CRC in Ada?)

[Ken Garlington <GarlingtonKE@lmtas.lmco.com>]

Robert Dewar wrote:
> 
> i<<I totally disagree with your use of the term "misuse" here. The only other
> Ada 83 I/O package that can possibly be used to read a binary file is Direct I/O
> >>
> 
> Nope, Direct_IO is also unsuitable for simulating stream_io in Ada 83 in a
> portable manner.
> 
> As for writing waivers, no one ever rqeuired a waiver for using pragma
> Interface to interface to existing libraries, especially ANSI C libraries,
> the idea is absurd. 

Actually, yes they do, if the library becomes delivered as part of the
total
system. (And to answer the obvious follow-up question, yes I have
processed
waivers for assembly routines contained within the Ada run-time!)

The real question is: "So you have to write a waiver. So what?"

> Yes, I know, some procurement people do absurd
> things.
> 
> Your "use" of sequential_io was still inappropriate, because you were
> writing highly non-portable code, which might even have broken using
> the next version of the sam e compiler, let alone a different compiler.

By the way, on a related topic: On VAX/OpenVMS systems, the end-of-file
marker
is embedded within the file header. Even for sequential, fixed-length
record files, the EOF can be placed in the middle of a record
(effectively
truncating it). I have recently come to discover that doing Sequential
IO
on such files has what I consider to be a strange outcome: the truncated
record is read normally, and so "garbage" values past the end of the
file
are processed. On the next record read, END_ERROR is raised. Does the
GNAT implementation for Alpha/OpenVMS mimic this philosophy, as opposed
to
(for example) raising DATA_ERROR on the truncated record? Because of
this problem, we have had to switch to "C" I/O for these files... 

--
LMTAS - The Fighter Enterprise - "Our Brand Means Quality"
For job listings, other info: http://www.lmtas.com or
http://www.lmco.com