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: 103376,30dd116614f4610e
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news4.google.com!feeder2.cambriumusenet.nl!feeder1.cambriumusenet.nl!feed.tweaknews.nl!85.158.31.10.MISMATCH!newsfeed-0.progon.net!progon.net!uucp.gnuu.de!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool3.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>
Subject: Re: Protected Objects And Many Processors
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/2.0.15.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de
Organization: cbb software GmbH
References: <4d39cbde$0$6882$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net>
 <op.vpoa7bc7ule2fv@garhos>
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2011 21:35:47 +0100
Message-ID: <1shedfqd2b0n9$.ldkhs4t7s9cw$.dlg@40tude.net>
NNTP-Posting-Date: 21 Jan 2011 21:35:48 CET
NNTP-Posting-Host: f5664ae4.newsspool1.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=gNaTH274iC:]E=H1Q9`787ic==]BZ:af>4Fo<]lROoR1<`=YMgDjhg2d2OU1aaAFV4[6LHn;2LCV>[<mhadbfdU;M0i\cjXN1]3Lj:MX0?l8X>
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:16620
Date: 2011-01-21T21:35:48+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 20:31:49 +0100, Yannick Duch�ne (Hibou57) wrote:

> If you feel there may be a better solution, we first should now what that  
> other solution could be (you did not say).

Tasks marshaling parameters. There existed architectures in early 90s,
which used networked massively parallel processors rather than cores. I
mean transputers. Arguably, they came to early and targeted the high end
segment. Most likely they will return, now in the middle and low end of the
scale. Presumably, in a long term perspective, multi-cores will have no
chance to compete with such architectures. Consider 10**2, 10**3, 10**4
processors on one chip.

> You still need a synchronization mechanism, aren't you ?

That depends on the case.

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