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: 103376,64a6ad02ec510120 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-11-03 01:28:30 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!news-out.cwix.com!newsfeed.cwix.com!intgwpad.nntp.telstra.net!news.telstra.net!news-server.bigpond.net.au!not-for-mail From: Dale Stanbrough Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Interfacing to C library... References: User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.3b1 (PPC Mac OS X) Message-ID: Date: Sun, 03 Nov 2002 09:28:28 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 144.132.47.50 X-Complaints-To: news@bigpond.net.au X-Trace: news-server.bigpond.net.au 1036315708 144.132.47.50 (Sun, 03 Nov 2002 20:28:28 EST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 03 Nov 2002 20:28:28 EST Organization: BigPond Internet Services (http://www.bigpond.net.au) Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:30318 Date: 2002-11-03T09:28:28+00:00 List-Id: Robert A Duff wrote: > >...I think I like the > > GNAT Import_Function()/Import_Procedure() pragmas a little better, > > since they facilitate finer control over the parameter passing method. > > However, I'd rather not use compiler specific capabilities... > > Good idea. (At least *I* think portability to non-GNAT compilers is > good, in part because I work for SofCheck, which sells non-GNAT Ada > compilers. ;-)) How do other compiler companies deal with this issue? My guess is that a lot of code is written with Gnat, and very little of it is compiled with the "no gnat pragmas" option set. Is there a trend to incldue Gnat pragmas in all other compilers? Dale