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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Semantics of POSIX Ada Binding Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2014 12:37:39 +0200 Organization: cbb software GmbH Message-ID: References: Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de NNTP-Posting-Host: qHNcUCBwwd01dPSBp/L1cg.user.speranza.aioe.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/2.0.15.1 X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2 Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:21240 Date: 2014-07-26T12:37:39+02:00 List-Id: On Sat, 26 Jul 2014 10:07:37 +0000 (UTC), Natasha Kerensikova wrote: > On 2014-07-05, Natasha Kerensikova 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