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,FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,92640d662fc31a03 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-05-09 09:13:15 PST Path: newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!newsfeed1.earthlink.net!newsfeed.earthlink.net!newsmaster1.prod.itd.earthlink.net!newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: howto make system calls (newbie question) From: charleshixson@earthling.net (Charles Hixson) References: <9d6c89$1nd$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <9d87id$oll15@news.kvaerner.com> <9d8ute$8tt9@news.kvaerner.com> <9dauu7$8m913@news.kvaerner.com> <2ecbjJt$+0y8@eisner.encompasserve.org> Organization: Mandala Fluteworks Message-ID: User-Agent: Xnews/M3 Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 16:13:14 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 198.94.156.19 X-Complaints-To: abuse@earthlink.net X-Trace: newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net 989424794 198.94.156.19 (Wed, 09 May 2001 09:13:14 PDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 09:13:14 PDT X-Received-Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 09:11:38 PDT (newsmaster1.prod.itd.earthlink.net) Xref: newsfeed.google.com comp.lang.ada:7381 Date: 2001-05-09T16:13:14+00:00 List-Id: Kilgallen@eisner.decus.org.nospam (Larry Kilgallen) wrote in <2ecbjJt$+0y8@eisner.encompasserve.org>: >In article <9dauu7$8m913@news.kvaerner.com>, "Tarjei T. >Jensen" writes: >... >I certainly agree, but I was responding to a thread with >entries espousing codification of all "standard datatypes" >that might be used in system calls. I consider that >unworkable, because what constitutes a "standard datatype" >varies so much between various operating systems. >Basically, I do not feel there is progress to be made in that >direction. > Perhaps the problem is the correct level of abstraction. Clearly machine/OS specific variations don't belong in the standard, but I also feel that SOME way of accomplishing the needed tasks does belong in the standard. It may be that on some machines this would be inappropriately inefficient, but at least it would be possible. This is somewhat similar to using a numeric 1 to indicate true. If your machine has a 60 bit word length, then this may be quite inefficient. But it will make the transmission of logical information possible. (I believe that this was, indeed, the way that it was done on the CDC7600, at least in the Fortran that I used.) As with the representation of Booleans, so with other things, it is frequently true that a less efficient method will be "good enough", and that portability will pay back for numerous inefficiencies. And a good compiler could come with specialized libraries that would handle the process in a way more appropriate to the particular machine/OS. (On the 7600, it was a speed trade off. The individual bits couldn't be addressed, so for speed the >0 comparison was used [I believe that other compilers just checked the sign bit]). -- Charles Hixson Copy software legally, the GNU way! Use GNU software, and legally make and share copies of software. See http://www.gnu.org http://www.redhat.com http://www.linux-mandrake.com http://www.calderasystems.com/ http://www.linuxapps.com/