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: 103376,92640d662fc31a03 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-05-10 08:45:58 PST Path: newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!feed.textport.net!hammer.uoregon.edu!skates!not-for-mail From: Stephen Leake Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: howto make system calls (newbie question) Date: 10 May 2001 11:44:50 -0400 Organization: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center Message-ID: References: <3AFA8C39.1CE2FFAB@gsde.hou.us.ray.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: anarres.gsfc.nasa.gov Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: skates.gsfc.nasa.gov 989510417 25086 128.183.220.71 (10 May 2001 16:00:17 GMT) X-Complaints-To: dscoggin@cne-odin.gsfc.nasa.gov NNTP-Posting-Date: 10 May 2001 16:00:17 GMT User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) Emacs/20.6 Xref: newsfeed.google.com comp.lang.ada:7481 Date: 2001-05-10T16:00:17+00:00 List-Id: "Samuel T. Harris" writes: > I expect a complete POSIX binding can only come from the compiler vendor. > Ad hoc efforts, such a Pascal Obry's, are necessary at this stage > of the game but are not sufficient. I'd really like GNAT to > fully support the POSIX binding and not have to rely upon > some third-party, incomplete, add-on thing. GNAT is a set of source code, not a company. The point being that _you_ have the source to GNAT, so does Pascal, so does everybody else. Any of us could modify the run time system of GNAT to fully support Posix. If we did a good job, ACT (the GNAT support company) might be willing to incorporate our work into their supported product. Then we'd have a widely available, supported Posix/Ada implementation. I don't have a need for Posix in my work, so I won't be doing this :). > I do not mean to demean Pascal's effort. In fact, I applaud them. I > feel that if customers need POSIX, then they simply must insist on > POSIX as a requirement for compiler choice. Vendors who do not > support it directly and complete are simply dropped from > consideration. Or perhaps customers need to realize that new development costs money, and negotiate with the vendors to pay for the development. -- -- Stephe