* Interoperability: differing storage units and/or endianess @ 2004-02-19 12:29 Bibb Latting 2004-02-19 17:23 ` Jeffrey Carter ` (2 more replies) 0 siblings, 3 replies; 10+ messages in thread From: Bibb Latting @ 2004-02-19 12:29 UTC (permalink / raw) Hi, I am working on a distributed application where the processors have differing storage unit sizes and/or endianess. My problem is how to handle the specification of memory contents and the delivery of data to applications with minimal variation between implementations. I'd like to know what solutions have worked well for others. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: Interoperability: differing storage units and/or endianess 2004-02-19 12:29 Interoperability: differing storage units and/or endianess Bibb Latting @ 2004-02-19 17:23 ` Jeffrey Carter 2004-02-20 13:52 ` Martin Dowie 2004-02-20 7:41 ` Michael Paus 2004-02-21 5:34 ` Steve 2 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: Jeffrey Carter @ 2004-02-19 17:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Bibb Latting wrote: > Hi, I am working on a distributed application where the processors > have differing storage unit sizes and/or endianess. My problem is how > to handle the specification of memory contents and the delivery of > data to applications with minimal variation between implementations. > I'd like to know what solutions have worked well for others. If you can use Annex E (for example, GNAT/GLADE), then this is handled for you. If you have to roll your own, you could probably use the marshalling/unmarshalling code from GLADE to achieve this. The basic idea is to pick a representation for transmission, and ensure that every box converts to this representation before transmission, and converts from this representation after reception. -- Jeff Carter "Apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?" Monty Python's Life of Brian 80 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: Interoperability: differing storage units and/or endianess 2004-02-19 17:23 ` Jeffrey Carter @ 2004-02-20 13:52 ` Martin Dowie 0 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread From: Martin Dowie @ 2004-02-20 13:52 UTC (permalink / raw) "Jeffrey Carter" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message news:li6Zb.293$aT1.271@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net... > Bibb Latting wrote: > > > Hi, I am working on a distributed application where the processors > > have differing storage unit sizes and/or endianess. My problem is how > > to handle the specification of memory contents and the delivery of > > data to applications with minimal variation between implementations. > > I'd like to know what solutions have worked well for others. > > If you can use Annex E (for example, GNAT/GLADE), then this is handled > for you. If you have to roll your own, you could probably use the > marshalling/unmarshalling code from GLADE to achieve this. > > The basic idea is to pick a representation for transmission, and ensure > that every box converts to this representation before transmission, and > converts from this representation after reception. Another thing to consider is the relative processing power and system demands of the nodes on the network. I worked on one system which used an Alpha and a PowerPC. The PowerPC had little spare processing time and the Alpha was _much_ quicker_, so we did all conversions on the Alpha. You could set up lookup tables and index them based on 'source' and 'destination' and thus keep all the transforms in one set of source code. Cheers -- Martin ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: Interoperability: differing storage units and/or endianess 2004-02-19 12:29 Interoperability: differing storage units and/or endianess Bibb Latting 2004-02-19 17:23 ` Jeffrey Carter @ 2004-02-20 7:41 ` Michael Paus 2004-02-20 8:56 ` Stephen Leake 2004-02-20 12:43 ` Petter Fryklund 2004-02-21 5:34 ` Steve 2 siblings, 2 replies; 10+ messages in thread From: Michael Paus @ 2004-02-20 7:41 UTC (permalink / raw) Bibb Latting wrote: > Hi, I am working on a distributed application where the processors > have differing storage unit sizes and/or endianess. My problem is how > to handle the specification of memory contents and the delivery of > data to applications with minimal variation between implementations. > I'd like to know what solutions have worked well for others. And I'd like to know which currently used processors have a storage unit size other than 8. Michael ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: Interoperability: differing storage units and/or endianess 2004-02-20 7:41 ` Michael Paus @ 2004-02-20 8:56 ` Stephen Leake 2004-02-20 10:54 ` Michael Paus 2004-02-20 12:43 ` Petter Fryklund 1 sibling, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: Stephen Leake @ 2004-02-20 8:56 UTC (permalink / raw) To: comp.lang.ada Michael Paus <pausnospam@nospamib-paus.com> writes: > Bibb Latting wrote: > > > Hi, I am working on a distributed application where the processors > > have differing storage unit sizes and/or endianess. My problem is how > > to handle the specification of memory contents and the delivery of > > data to applications with minimal variation between implementations. > > I'd like to know what solutions have worked well for others. > > And I'd like to know which currently used processors have a storage > unit size other than 8. Many DSPs use 16 bit words. -- -- Stephe ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: Interoperability: differing storage units and/or endianess 2004-02-20 8:56 ` Stephen Leake @ 2004-02-20 10:54 ` Michael Paus 2004-02-20 13:55 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov 0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: Michael Paus @ 2004-02-20 10:54 UTC (permalink / raw) Stephen Leake wrote: > Michael Paus <pausnospam@nospamib-paus.com> writes: > > >>Bibb Latting wrote: >> >> >>>Hi, I am working on a distributed application where the processors >>>have differing storage unit sizes and/or endianess. My problem is how >>>to handle the specification of memory contents and the delivery of >>>data to applications with minimal variation between implementations. >>>I'd like to know what solutions have worked well for others. >> >>And I'd like to know which currently used processors have a storage >>unit size other than 8. > > > Many DSPs use 16 bit words. Interesting! I haven't worked with DSPs for a very long time. Could you tell me how they map, e.g. a character. Does it always have 16 bits or don't they have the type character at all anymore? Michael ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: Interoperability: differing storage units and/or endianess 2004-02-20 10:54 ` Michael Paus @ 2004-02-20 13:55 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov 0 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread From: Dmitry A. Kazakov @ 2004-02-20 13:55 UTC (permalink / raw) On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 11:54:02 +0100, Michael Paus <pausnospam@nospamib-paus.com> wrote: >Stephen Leake wrote: > >> Michael Paus <pausnospam@nospamib-paus.com> writes: >> >>>Bibb Latting wrote: >>> >>>>Hi, I am working on a distributed application where the processors >>>>have differing storage unit sizes and/or endianess. My problem is how >>>>to handle the specification of memory contents and the delivery of >>>>data to applications with minimal variation between implementations. >>>>I'd like to know what solutions have worked well for others. >>> >>>And I'd like to know which currently used processors have a storage >>>unit size other than 8. >> >> Many DSPs use 16 bit words. > >Interesting! I haven't worked with DSPs for a very long time. Could >you tell me how they map, e.g. a character. Does it always have >16 bits or don't they have the type character at all anymore? Do you mean Ada or C? In Ada the type Character need not to be aliased. As for C, I remotely remember a DSP compiler that used 32 bits per char. It is allowed in ANSI C, AFAIK. -- Regards, Dmitry A. Kazakov www.dmitry-kazakov.de ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: Interoperability: differing storage units and/or endianess 2004-02-20 7:41 ` Michael Paus 2004-02-20 8:56 ` Stephen Leake @ 2004-02-20 12:43 ` Petter Fryklund 2004-02-20 20:24 ` Randy Brukardt 1 sibling, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: Petter Fryklund @ 2004-02-20 12:43 UTC (permalink / raw) UNISYS 2200 and followers has 36 bit words usually diveded into 4 x 9 bit bytes or 6 x 6. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: Interoperability: differing storage units and/or endianess 2004-02-20 12:43 ` Petter Fryklund @ 2004-02-20 20:24 ` Randy Brukardt 0 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread From: Randy Brukardt @ 2004-02-20 20:24 UTC (permalink / raw) "Petter Fryklund" <petter.fryklund@atero.se> wrote in message news:95234e08.0402200443.1dbc7aa3@posting.google.com... > UNISYS 2200 and followers has 36 bit words usually diveded into 4 x 9 > bit bytes or 6 x 6. Right. We did a version of Janus/Ada 95 for that machine a few years back. I don't know if they're still maintaining it. We ended up using a storage unit of 9 with strong alignment requirements so that strings packed naturally. 'twas very interesting to build the bootstrap cross-compiler on Intel-based Unix boxes (we were always a bit short...) Randy. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: Interoperability: differing storage units and/or endianess 2004-02-19 12:29 Interoperability: differing storage units and/or endianess Bibb Latting 2004-02-19 17:23 ` Jeffrey Carter 2004-02-20 7:41 ` Michael Paus @ 2004-02-21 5:34 ` Steve 2 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread From: Steve @ 2004-02-21 5:34 UTC (permalink / raw) Check out: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1832.txt For a description of XDR. It is close to what we use for specifying data in our distributed application. Steve (The Duck) "Bibb Latting" <bibb.latting@cox.net> wrote in message news:9fb7e8e1.0402190429.49b37b16@posting.google.com... > Hi, I am working on a distributed application where the processors > have differing storage unit sizes and/or endianess. My problem is how > to handle the specification of memory contents and the delivery of > data to applications with minimal variation between implementations. > I'd like to know what solutions have worked well for others. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2004-02-21 5:34 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 10+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2004-02-19 12:29 Interoperability: differing storage units and/or endianess Bibb Latting 2004-02-19 17:23 ` Jeffrey Carter 2004-02-20 13:52 ` Martin Dowie 2004-02-20 7:41 ` Michael Paus 2004-02-20 8:56 ` Stephen Leake 2004-02-20 10:54 ` Michael Paus 2004-02-20 13:55 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov 2004-02-20 12:43 ` Petter Fryklund 2004-02-20 20:24 ` Randy Brukardt 2004-02-21 5:34 ` Steve
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox