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!attcan!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: <2000@sparko.gwu.edu>
Date: 29 Jun 90 17:30:08 GMT
References: <1394@software.software.org> <20600054@inmet> <1996@sparko.gwu.edu> <138098@sun.Eng.Sun.COM>
Reply-To: mfeldman@seas.gwu.edu ()
Organization: The George Washington University, Washington D.C.
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <138098@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> grover@brahmand.Eng.Sun.COM (Vinod Grover) writes:
>In article <1996@sparko.gwu.edu> mfeldman@seas.gwu.edu () writes:
>>                                Is it tested in the ACVC?
>It sounds very simple. Why dont you write a test for it?
Well, I don't think it's a simple as all that. What needs to be tested is
whether the allocator is safe in the presence of a run time system in which
tasks can be arbitrarily interrupted (pre-empted, whatever). Do you have a
good idea for a program that can create these conditions, i.e. that is 
such that we can control the timing precisely enough to guarantee that the
two tasks executing allocator calls will be interrupted precisely in the
middle of their calls?

I am reassured by Tucker Taft's assertion that an implementation has to be
sure its runtime data structures aren't "corrupted" in tasking situations.
I asked about the ACVC because, since I've never seen that assertion in 
writing "officially," I wonder what the authority is for it.