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=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,956e1c708fea1c33
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: kilgallen@eisner.decus.org (Larry Kilgallen)
Subject: Re: Looking for implementation idea
Date: 1999/02/07
Message-ID: <1999Feb7.152252.1@eisner>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 441766246
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: eisner.decus.org
References: <36BD749B.DA735DB7@umundum.vol.at>
 <m2yamagkdi.fsf@wf-rch.cirr.com>
X-Trace: news.decus.org 918418975 20713 KILGALLEN [192.67.173.2]
Organization: LJK Software
Reply-To: Kilgallen@eisner.decus.org.nospam
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1999-02-07T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <m2yamagkdi.fsf@wf-rch.cirr.com>, Corey Minyard <minyard@acm.org> writes:

> One question for the Ada experts: Ada protected types don't work in
> SMP since they are task priority based, do they?  Or maybe I'm missing
> something.  If they don't, maybe we should think about adding a real
> semaphore to the Ada spec.

I cannot speak as an Ada expert, but I can say that the natural
expectation of a programmer would be that if a protected type
mechanism worked on a uniprocessor it would also work correctly
on an SMP machine.  The availability of extra processors should
not have to be a coding concern.  Perhaps there is something in
the specification of compiler tests that allows one to pass
with the caveat that "it only works on uniprocessors", but if
a compiler vendor used that approach I would think they lose
some of the more desirable customers (those with enough money
to buy multiprocessors).

Larry Kilgallen