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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,4ef4bf3098ab117 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!news.glorb.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newsfeed.cwix.com!news.binc.net!kilgallen From: Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Ada compiler differences Date: 26 Oct 2004 10:23:26 -0500 Organization: LJK Software Message-ID: References: <+Lb8wu$Il5Pz@eisner.encompasserve.org> <1wVdd.5$Au6.4@dfw-service2.ext.ray.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: eisner.encompasserve.org X-Trace: grandcanyon.binc.net 1098804170 15467 192.135.80.34 (26 Oct 2004 15:22:50 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@binc.net NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 15:22:50 +0000 (UTC) Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:5723 Date: 2004-10-26T10:23:26-05:00 List-Id: In article <1wVdd.5$Au6.4@dfw-service2.ext.ray.com>, Mark H Johnson writes: > Larry Kilgallen wrote: >> In article , "Warren W. Gay VE3WWG" writes: >> >>>Mark H Johnson wrote: >>> >>>>Larry Kilgallen wrote: >>>> >>>>>In article , Mark H Johnson >>>>> 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.