Re: Ada compiler differences

[Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen)]

In article <1wVdd.5$Au6.4@dfw-service2.ext.ray.com>, Mark H Johnson <mark_h_johnson@raytheon.com> writes:
> Larry Kilgallen wrote:
>> In article <YDwdd.53169$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....

If there was a question, _I_ ignored it for lack of context.

> 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 see nothing in the material quoted above about Posix.  I have never
been on a machine which had an implementation of the Ada bindings to
Posix.

I pointed out that TCP/IP was devised without depending on an underlying
mechanism like ASN.1 implementations which solve the marshalling problem.

I don't believe I see anything above from the initial poster.

> 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.

We were discussing the issue of TCP/IP implementations requiring special
little routines to resolve endian issues.  More user-friendly mechanisms
do not require that.