From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,3db3a64384280d0f X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: "Steve Doiel" Subject: Re: Ada to C++ communication under NT4.0 Date: 1998/08/10 Message-ID: <35cfa159.0@news.pacifier.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 379903299 References: <01bdc0c8$e8a76a80$0f010180@nc84c> <35c8ecf5.0@news1.ibm.net> <01bdc494$f3eab0d0$0f010180@nc84c> Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Date: 1998-08-10T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Have a look at memory mapped files under NT. This is the way shared memory is generally handled under NT. SteveD Mark wrote in message <01bdc494$f3eab0d0$0f010180@nc84c>... >I am well aware that there is nothing magic about an Ada executable! The >main question concerns a C application and an Ada application running under >NT4.0 which require to share a large amount of data, therefore creating >significant overhead in terms of speed and memory usage if sockets or >mailboxes are used. Shared memory would seem the best option in this case. > If using shared memory then one of the applications would allocate the >address presumably, which the other would then overlay? If this was the >case then would the passing of the address have to via mailboxes or sockets >since a direct call would not be possible? Also, I am not sure how memory >would be allocated in NT4.0. What happens when the memory is swapped to >disk? Is all of this transparent to the application? Someone has >suggested linking the two images together using our GNAT compiler. Is this >possible? I would not have thought so since presumably the Ada and C >applications would require separate run time systems to handle their >tasking. > >More replies to newsgroup please. > >Mark >