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=0.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_DATE,
	MSGID_SHORT,REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
	version=3.4.4
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!seas.gwu.edu!mfeldman
From: mfeldman@seas.gwu.edu (Michael Feldman)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: LRM question - access types and con
Message-ID: <1996@sparko.gwu.edu>
Date: 29 Jun 90 03:51:37 GMT
References: <1394@software.software.org> <20600054@inmet>
Reply-To: mfeldman@seas.gwu.edu ()
Organization: The George Washington University, Washington D.C.
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <20600054@inmet> stt@inmet.inmet.com writes:
 >
 >Re: Allocators and tasking.
 >
 >The programmer need only worry about declared variables which are shared
 >between tasks.  An access collection is not considered an explicitly
 >declared variable in this sense.
 >
 >The implementation must worry about all "hidden" shared data.
 >
 >Therefore, an implementation must protect its run-time data structures
 >from simultaneous access.
This comes as very good news. Is there an AI that governs it, or is it
part of the folklore somewhere? Is it tested in the ACVC?