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-Thread: 103376,1a44c40a66c293f3
X-Google-Thread: 1089ad,7e78f469a06e6516
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,gid1089ad,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: "claude.simon@equipement.gouv.fr" <claude.simon@equipement.gouv.fr>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.vhdl
Subject: Re: Embedded languages based on early Ada (from "Re: Preferred OS,
 processor family for running embedded Ada?")
Date: 1 Mar 2007 03:47:34 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: <1172749654.262525.47770@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
References: <1172192349.419694.274670@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
   <uslcxt1u7.fsf@stephe-leake.org>
   <1172239820.896603.222120@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
   <u649rx29a.fsf@stephe-leake.org>
   <nhn5b4-9b2.ln1@newserver.thecreems.com>
   <pan.2007.02.24.22.11.44.430179@linuxchip.demon.co.uk.uk.uk>
   <u7iu68eba.fsf@stephe-leake.org>
   <es4dl5$ve2$1@newsserver.cilea.it>
   <pan.2007.03.01.11.23.01.229462@linuxchip.demon.co.uk.uk.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 212.23.162.39
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1172749667 4373 127.0.0.1 (1 Mar 2007 11:47:47
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2007 11:47:47 +0000 (UTC)
In-Reply-To: <pan.2007.03.01.11.23.01.229462@linuxchip.demon.co.uk.uk.uk>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; fr;
 rv:1.8.1.2) Gecko/20070219 Firefox/2.0.0.2,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
X-HTTP-Via: 1.1 sesame.setra.fr:3128 (squid/2.5.STABLE3)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com; posting-host=212.23.162.39;
   posting-account=SnKwIw0AAABJwJI8idy3oqasZLmqdeAT
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:9619 comp.lang.vhdl:7578
Date: 2007-03-01T03:47:34-08:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 1 mar, 12:22, "Dr. Adrian Wrigley"
<a...@linuxchip.demon.co.uk.uk.uk> wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Feb 2007 17:20:37 +0000, Colin Paul Gloster wrote:
>
> ...
>
> > Dr. Adrian Wrigley wrote:
>
> > "  Something like this
> > might allow a "rebranding" of Ada (i.e. a new name, with full buzzword
> > compliance), and would be ideal to address the "new" paradigm of
> > multicore/multithreaded processor software, using the lightweight
> > threading and parallelism absent from Ada as we know it. For those who
> > know Occam, something like the 'PAR' and "SEQ" constructs are missing in
> > Ada."
>
> > I really fail to see the relevance of multiple processors to
> > lightweight threading.
>
> ????
>
> If you don't have multiple processors, lightweight threading is
> less attractive than if you do?  Inmos/Occam/Transputer was founded
> on the basis that lightweight threading was highly relevant to multiple
> processors.
>
> Ada has no means of saying "Do these bits concurrently, if you like,
> because I don't care what the order of execution is".  And a compiler
> can't work it out from the source.  If your CPU has loads of threads,
> compiling code with "PAR" style language concurrency is rather useful
> and easy.
> --
> Adrian

If my memory is ok Jean Pierre Rosen had a proposal :

for I in all 1 .. n loop
...
end loop;