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-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,fd0ee7c9be011576 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-03-07 10:08:07 PST Path: supernews.google.com!sn-xit-03!supernews.com!news-out.usenetserver.com!news-out-sjo.usenetserver.com!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!newsfeeds.sol.net!newspump.sol.net!homer.alpha.net!not-for-mail From: "Randy Brukardt" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada 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> Subject: Re: Ada Annex E (Just curious :-) X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3612.1700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3719.2500 Message-ID: <_Mup6.4125$7e6.1607402@homer.alpha.net> Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2001 12:02:48 -0600 NNTP-Posting-Host: 156.46.62.124 X-Complaints-To: abuse@alpha.net X-Trace: homer.alpha.net 983988410 156.46.62.124 (Wed, 07 Mar 2001 12:06:50 CST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2001 12:06:50 CST Xref: supernews.google.com comp.lang.ada:5505 Date: 2001-03-07T12:02:48-06:00 List-Id: Marin David Condic wrote in message <985hgg$hqu$1@nh.pace.co.uk>... > > >"Robert A Duff" wrote in message >news:wccg0gqqzvc.fsf@world.std.com... >> A major goal of Annex E is to allow the user of a compiler, or a third >> party, to provide the (low-level) communications software, *without* >> modifying the compiler. The compiler provides marshalling/unmarshalling >> of data structures and so forth, and there's a well-defined interface to >> the communications software, so you should be able to plug in your own, >> and still get RPC. Is there some way in which this goal is not >> achieved? >> >Well, this is, of course, going to be implementation dependent. I could >imagine a well designed compiler providing a well documented programming >interface so that the embedded developer had to build some >packages/subprograms & link with the compiler's runtime and - "then a >miracle occurs" - and you're off and running with RPC's, etc. 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. >But you've still got potential problems because you may have different >compilers for the different processors. They may not do things quite the >same way, so you aren't necessarily going to be able to get the code from >one compiler to RPC code from the other. The situation with simple data >accesses is similar. 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). Randy.