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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,52882f38318f3520 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: dewar@schonberg.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) Subject: Re: Linking an ADA routine to a program written in C Date: 1996/10/03 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 187045394 references: <1996Sep28.154511.1@eisner> organization: New York University newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-10-03T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Larry says "> However, in practice, since Ada 95 can duplicate a C interface, Ada 95 > can certainly interfac to anything that C (or for that matter Fortran > or COBOL) can interface to. Of course, as is generally true for interacing > from C to anything, such interfaces may indeed be non-portable. As far as _non-portable_ interfaces to other languages, I can do that with an Ada 83 program, since I can generally figure out how to program in assembly language, and in my experience understanding the underlying machine calling sequences is essential for figuring such things out even if the linkage is to be constructed in a compiled language. " This shows that you do not have muych experience in the use of Ada 95 in constructing such interfaces, since what you say is simply wrong for Ada 95, you can interface GNAT to a wide range of languages by following whatever C would do without having the slightest idea of what the underlying machine calling sequence is. Perhaps your experience with Ada 83 is indeed typical, perhaps it is not, but in any case it seems irrelevant with respect to Ada 95.