Re: Semantics of POSIX Ada Binding

["Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>]

On Sat, 26 Jul 2014 10:07:37 +0000 (UTC), Natasha Kerensikova wrote:

> On 2014-07-05, Natasha Kerensikova <lithiumcat@instinctive.eu> wrote:
>>
>> I have been using Florist implementation of POSIX bindings for a while,
>> and been mostly happy with it. However the documentation of Florist is a
>> bit... terse. As far as I can tell, it amounts to "see IEEE STD 1003.5x".
>>
>> However, while both Ada and POSIX standards are freely available, it
>> seems that versions of "IEEE STD 1003.5" are not. Or at least I have
>> failed to find any.
>>
>> Is there a documentation somewhere that I missed?
>> Or are we left only with guesswork from public references?
>>
>>
>> More specifically, my current problem is about the interaction between
>> Ada tasking and POSIX.Process_Primitives.Start_Process, in light of the
>> warning about GNAT's System.OS_Lib.Spawn.
>>
>> Is having Florist enough of an OS restriction to ensure things work
>> fine? Or is there a subtle difference in the similar implementations of
>> Start_Process and Spawn that ensure everything is alright?
>> Or is there some hard-to-find bug just waiting to spring from the
>> breach?
>>
>> It would be nice to have some indication on the limits or caveats of
>> such subprograms...
> 
> I'm not found of the idea of "bumping" a thread, but I find it hard to
> believe absolutely nobody here has any idea on the topic, or at least on
> where I could find pointers towards a solution.
> 
> Is it possible the message above has been missed by knowledgeable
> people? Or am I really alone on the problem?

That is probably about what your solution space includes. Mine, for
example, includes "not to use POSIX." I would guess that people feel
hesitant suggesting you to use something else, when you specifically asked
about POSIX...

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de