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=-0.4 required=5.0 tests=AC_FROM_MANY_DOTS,BAYES_00 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,fd0ee7c9be011576 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-03-07 12:08:09 PST Path: supernews.google.com!sn-xit-03!supernews.com!freenix!isdnet!psinet-france!psiuk-f4!psiuk-p4!uknet!psiuk-n!news.pace.co.uk!nh.pace.co.uk!not-for-mail From: "Marin David Condic" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Ada Annex E (Just curious :-) Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2001 14:52:42 -0500 Organization: Posted on a server owned by Pace Micro Technology plc Message-ID: <9863jf$nph$1@nh.pace.co.uk> References: <3AA29386.E60A686D@linuxchip.demon.co.uk> <980ekl$p4h$1@nh.pace.co.uk><3AA43C58.105B970D@linuxchip.demon.co.uk> <982veb$l62$1@nh.pace.co.uk><983b1s$m6h$1@trog.dera.gov.uk> <983ivv$r8c$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <985hgg$hqu$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <_Mup6.4125$7e6.1607402@homer.alpha.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: 136.170.200.133 X-Trace: nh.pace.co.uk 983994799 24369 136.170.200.133 (7 Mar 2001 19:53:19 GMT) X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@pace.co.uk NNTP-Posting-Date: 7 Mar 2001 19:53:19 GMT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Xref: supernews.google.com comp.lang.ada:5509 Date: 2001-03-07T19:53:19+00:00 List-Id: "Randy Brukardt" wrote in message news:_Mup6.4125$7e6.1607402@homer.alpha.net... > No, no, no. Annex E provides a standard package for all of that stuff > (see E.5), the compiler is required to allow the user to change that > package (and the ACATS tests do exactly that). > > So it had better be implementation-independent. > O.K. I stand corrected. I'm not as familiar with Annex E as maybe I should be, it appears. :-) What you're saying is that you'd do some sort of extension to System.RPC and fill in the read/write/do_rpc stuff? The dispatching handles the rest? That would go a long way to making it fairly easy to modify the behavior to get what you want. Now your only issue would be efficiency - and of course that's always an issue that is going to depend on the quality of the compiler in question anyway. The best you could do is have some benchmark programs & run some tests... > It is true that marshalling and unmarshalling can be a problem. That > usually can be handled with overrides to 'Read and 'Write. (Indeed, that > is a major reason that they can be overridden). > I've had representation issues with the 'Read and 'Write stuff before. I've also expressed complaints about its efficiency. I suppose if I were molding all this stuff to a specific environment I might resort to assembly code if I couldn't get around the Ada rules. It would be ugly, but it might get the job done. In general, I've not been 100% happy with the behavior of streams and the 'Read & 'Write stuff. It may be fine for things that are done with the same compiler/hardware/os at both ends and where speed is not a critical issue. Where things get heterogeneous and you have performance issues, I think the requirements for that part of Ada are not very user friendly (at least if the user is me! :-) One might say "A Solution Does Exist" - but I might retort "It Would Be Difficult." MDC -- Marin David Condic Senior Software Engineer Pace Micro Technology Americas www.pacemicro.com Enabling the digital revolution e-Mail: marin.condic@pacemicro.com Web: http://www.mcondic.com/