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=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD,
	FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: a07f3367d7,d8e3cd3d8dbaa4fb
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Received: by 10.66.72.165 with SMTP id e5mr845480pav.4.1343200170916;
        Wed, 25 Jul 2012 00:09:30 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 p10ni53901309pbh.1!nntp.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border4.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!ctu-peer!ctu-gate!news.nctu.edu.tw!usenet.stanford.edu!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: Shark8 <onewingedshark@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Ada  "library only" compiler ?
Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2012 21:59:38 -0700 (PDT)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: <6ad7682d-0fd7-472d-a305-99074cb4f7d8@googlegroups.com>
References: 
 <2879c45e-f8e0-4434-9f82-968c585a4539@googlegroups.com><a6tvrmFdinU1@mid.individual.net><xO-dndcH8ZJTR5TNRVn_vwA@giganews.com>
 <87mx2ucags.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org> <juctbd$gbq$1@munin.nbi.dk>
 <500AA31F.8060004@obry.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 69.20.190.126
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1342933178 18623 127.0.0.1 (22 Jul 2012 04:59:38
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2012 04:59:38 +0000 (UTC)
Cc: Randy Brukardt <randy@rrsoftware.com>
In-Reply-To: <500AA31F.8060004@obry.net>
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com;
 posting-host=69.20.190.126;
 posting-account=lJ3JNwoAAAAQfH3VV9vttJLkThaxtTfC
User-Agent: G2/1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: 2012-07-21T21:59:38-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Saturday, July 21, 2012 6:39:59 AM UTC-6, Pascal Obry wrote:
> Randy,
>=20
>> And of course, the situation on Windows is very different. The basic OS =
API=20
>> (Win32) is defined via a set of DLL interfaces that are consistent acros=
s=20
>> all modern versions of Windows specifically so binary compatibility is=
=20
>> possible. No C is really required there, either.
>=20
> I don't see your point. Interfacing to a DLL is just like interfacing to
> C or whatever.

No, not really. The whole point of dynamic- vs. static-linking [libraries] =
is that in the case of the former it eliminates the need to recompile [your=
 application] if the underlying DLL's implementation is changed, with stati=
c-linking this is not so, any change in the library mandates a recompile/re=
link of your application.

It's somewhat like the interface/body separate compilation in Ada but appli=
ed to the software-system instead of the language/compiler-system.

With interfacing to another language the compiler has to know certain thing=
s about that language, most specifically symbol-generation, argument orderi=
ng and calling-conventions. {This is the whole reason for the convention pr=
agma.}

> In fact the Win32 DLL API are in C, same on Linux where
> the lib C is used, no? On Windows you interface to fopen() as done on
> UNIXes I suppose or maybe to an even higher level using OpenFile().

Not necessarily. So long as the Win32 API DLL presents the same interface t=
o the world its internals could be ASM, Prolog, Ada, LISP, etc. And so long=
 as the compiler is able to generate calls/returns to properly interface wi=
th the DLL the actual language of the compiler doesn't matter either.