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,FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,632dbd0caea19836 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!news.glorb.com!dedekind.zen.co.uk!zen.net.uk!hamilton.zen.co.uk!feed4.jnfs.ja.net!jnfs.ja.net!xara.net!gxn.net!194.159.246.34.MISMATCH!peer-uk.news.demon.net!kibo.news.demon.net!news.demon.co.uk!demon!not-for-mail From: Simon Wright Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: System calls - GNAT library vs. direct bindings Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2007 20:29:21 +0100 Organization: Pushface Message-ID: References: <1180623520.303981.191090@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> <1180679234.663392.52720@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: pogner.demon.co.uk Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: news.demon.co.uk 1180726161 7503 62.49.19.209 (1 Jun 2007 19:29:21 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2007 19:29:21 +0000 (UTC) Cancel-Lock: sha1:x+CA3HeSQmCgF4yZGYpghQcfURk= User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.95 (darwin) Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:16034 Date: 2007-06-01T20:29:21+01:00 List-Id: Maciej Sobczak writes: > On 31 Maj, 22:07, Simon Wright wrote: > >> We decided that GNAT.Sockets was perfectly OK for our needs (that >> doesn't mean we think it's perfect) > > Why is it not perfect? Because it was created by humans ... Specifically, the behaviour with UDP streams is bizarre -- it all looks as though the data is transferred correctly, but each atomic data item is sent/received in a separate datagram. The implementation of Socket_Type (and there's a naming issue straight away!) suffers from not being controlled, and might be better reference-counted (we've just had to deal with a file descriptor leak caused by this). I'm not sure that it was necessary to use 2 (3, temporarily) invisible sockets in the implementation of Selectors (perhaps it is, haven't thought about it deeply).