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=unavailable 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!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Natasha Kerensikova <lithiumcat@instinctive.eu>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Semantics of POSIX Ada Binding
Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2014 10:07:37 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID: <slrnlt6vf8.nrc.lithiumcat@nat.rebma.instinctive.eu>
References: <slrnlrga6o.i0l.lithiumcat@nat.rebma.instinctive.eu>
Injection-Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2014 10:07:37 +0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: mx05.eternal-september.org;
 posting-host="76a49b86bc3e16725b7cfca3d85cb4c8";
	logging-data="1634"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";
	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19ZaO6+CFZ2ef0C6/NfQANF"
User-Agent: slrn/1.0.1 (FreeBSD)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:eGrjJqpr41C9b1pvE60FFpo0phQ=
Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:21239
Date: 2014-07-26T10:07:37+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Hello,

On 2014-07-05, Natasha Kerensikova <lithiumcat@instinctive.eu> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> 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?


Thanks for your help,
Natasha