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=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,HK_NAME_MR_MRS
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,9bbec8931498da16
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-12-25 02:35:55 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!wn4feed!worldnet.att.net!204.127.198.203!attbi_feed3!attbi.com!rwcrnsc53.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Mr. Caffiene <nospam@attbi.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Help! (Ada/Integrity/PEG)
Message-ID: <20011225053959.69d97022.nospam@attbi.com>
References: <20011224164545.047b68e6.nospam@attbi.com>
 <ZfSV7.7307$Sa5.40333@rwcrnsc53>
Organization: Caffienated Corps.
X-Newsreader: Sylpheed version 0.6.5 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i586-pc-linux-gnu)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.245.48.122
X-Complaints-To: abuse@attbi.com
X-Trace: rwcrnsc53 1009276555 12.245.48.122 (Tue, 25 Dec 2001 10:35:55 GMT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2001 10:35:55 GMT
Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2001 10:35:55 GMT
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:18291
Date: 2001-12-25T10:35:55+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Tue, 25 Dec 2001 03:20:25 GMT
tmoran@acm.org wrote:

> > 2.  As either task can insert information into the qeue, I use a semaphore
> > to control when either task can access.  A semaphore is a concept from the
> > Unix world ...
>   If I understand what you're doing, an Ada "protected record" would be
> just the ticket here.  The queue data is hidden inside and the routines
> to insert/remove items are visible, but only one routine is allowed to
> execute at a time, so two tasks can't step on each other's feet.
> Essentially you let the compiler handle the semaphore for you, making
> your life simpler and less subject to mistakes, and the compiler
> run-time probably does the job more efficiently.

Hmmmm...I dont doubt that it's simpler. 

I'll test that method out. I'm curious how much of a performance penalty 
the compiler runtime would cause. I'm used to explicitly declaring and 
controlling the memory from scratch(likely due to my C and Assembler roots)
however an implicit run-time just might prove to be more effective in this
particular task.

I'll let you know what I discover.

Mr. Caffiene

Merry X-mas

chris@dont.spam.me