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=-0.4 required=5.0 tests=AC_FROM_MANY_DOTS,BAYES_00 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII X-Google-Thread: 103376,f48da8b15007eae1 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-11-05 10:15:00 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news.tele.dk!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!newsfeed1.swip.net!swipnet!nntpserver.swip.net!not-for-mail From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Bj=F6rn?= Lundin Subject: Re: Waiting for callbacks from dll on Win32 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada References: <3DC806C0.8080307@cogeco.ca> User-Agent: KNode/0.7.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8Bit Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.101.75.137 X-Complaints-To: news-abuse@swip.net X-Trace: nntpserver.swip.net 1036520085 213.101.75.137 (Tue, 05 Nov 2002 19:14:45 MET DST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2002 19:14:45 MET DST Organization: A Customer of Tele2 X-Sender: x-367446@d213-101-75-137.swipnet.se Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2002 19:16:42 +0100 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:30393 Date: 2002-11-05T19:16:42+01:00 List-Id: Warren W. Gay VE3WWG wrote: > Stephen Leake wrote: >> Bj�rn Lundin writes: >>>Hello! >>>I'm trying to make an interface to a c-dll that >>>connects to an OPC-server (WTclient.dll) >>> >>>It wants a pointer to a procedure, which I can provide >>>with an access value to a procedure in a protected object. >> >> >> Calling a procedure in a protected object is _not_ the same as calling >> a "normal" procedure; there are tasking issues involved. >> >> Wrap the protected object call in a "normal" procedure, and use that >> as the callback. >> >> Even then, you have to worry about the Ada tasking vs the C tasking. >> If you have an Ada main, you are probably ok. > > I think you also have to keep in mind that DLL tasks are > separate from your calling environment. So this may > complicate things depending upon the details. > I don't quite understand, could you elaborate a bit? /Bj�rn