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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,4e5770c49b971630
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news2.google.com!goblin1!goblin2!goblin.stu.neva.ru!news.internetdienste.de!noris.net!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool2.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>
Subject: Re: High-Integrity OO and controlled types
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/2.0.15.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de
Organization: cbb software GmbH
References: <d8204576-14ff-41a4-b850-ace9c15872d4@v8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>
 <f6e72476-0dca-4ab8-bfdf-94a0ddf7a7dc@j26g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>
 <4dbfe6cc$0$7664$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net>
 <1in9ypl17vu1t$.1shivr91x8zw6.dlg@40tude.net>
 <4dc01dca$0$6885$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net>
 <1ds39akl3dbii$.mlyj7piip5o3.dlg@40tude.net>
 <4dc112cf$0$6772$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net>
 <gbwm0iuo4ed4$.1e5m2ye4kvqqj$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <4dc166bd$0$6973$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net>
 <1ligthpgu6ogv$.dquevy2bn4tw$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <4dc16ff7$0$6985$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net>
 <1wtqj5ym270iw.11hopx6y7w1co$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <4dc187af$0$6991$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net>
 <15h978k5yukhl.kga2durs3cjl.dlg@40tude.net>
 <1356f246-a883-4b9b-92f5-7426cc945084@o26g2000vby.googlegroups.com>
 <d718cefa-1bd2-4dd2-95e9-0139b5c9fdee@w24g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>
Date: Thu, 5 May 2011 14:35:33 +0200
Message-ID: <1rm14lt5cdrzt$.1uajymfza70xy$.dlg@40tude.net>
NNTP-Posting-Date: 05 May 2011 14:35:34 CEST
NNTP-Posting-Host: c22378ff.newsspool1.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=i]1f\?9<NeYAX0F2i><W:Sic==]BZ:af^4Fo<]lROoRQ<`=YMgDjhgRBQUbemZCF3^[6LHn;2LCV^7enW;^6ZC`T\`mfM[68DCS]m[iL7RSO]]
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:19171
Date: 2011-05-05T14:35:34+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Thu, 5 May 2011 03:58:26 -0700 (PDT), Cyrille wrote:

> For instance,
> assuming a single core config, one can implement protect objects
> without any locking mechanism... and such implementations exist in
> several Ada technologies as far as I know...

It is difficult to find single cores in these days. Recently we had certain
problems caused by multiple core issues. But we could not find a single
core machine. So we had to fix our software... (:-))

I agree that tasking could be more efficient, but working around
Ravenscar's limitations (on entries, for example) might eat all that gain.
It is not obvious.

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de