From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.5-pre1 (2020-06-20) on
	ip-172-31-74-118.ec2.internal
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_40,FREEMAIL_FROM
	autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.5-pre1
X-Received: by 2002:ac8:4f15:: with SMTP id b21mr29274qte.222.1623586015110; Sun, 13 Jun 2021 05:06:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a25:cb48:: with SMTP id b69mr18688607ybg.173.1623586014913; Sun, 13 Jun 2021 05:06:54 -0700 (PDT)
Path: eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!news.uzoreto.com!tr3.eu1.usenetexpress.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr3.iad1.usenetexpress.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2021 05:06:54 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <sa482l$ocp$1@franka.jacob-sparre.dk>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=174.71.119.33; posting-account=ix5KpAoAAAD9zo_4u1FxHVmn1uZn7U_d
NNTP-Posting-Host: 174.71.119.33
References: <c6169572-25bc-4db7-a50d-c6c8575069a4n@googlegroups.com> <sa2bpc$it8$1@gioia.aioe.org> <aa8d1e4f-494e-4d8a-8c44-edfdb7f3ec04n@googlegroups.com> <sa2lhe$ig3$1@gioia.aioe.org> <1d798609-8b73-4bc6-b74f-e435e8af8fedn@googlegroups.com> <sa482l$ocp$1@franka.jacob-sparre.dk>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <26182d75-4a84-47d2-b151-bbcb01964fabn@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: non-preemptive tasking on GNAT 2020 Windows 10 multicore AMD
From: Dan Winslow <dandwinslow@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2021 12:06:55 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:62214
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


> Not really, at least in an Annex D sense. (The core doesn't require much, in 
> part so Ada will work on a wide variety of targets.) Pretty much everyone 
> has agreed to ignore the impossibility of implementing Annex D on Windows -- 
> remember that there is an "impossible or impractical" exception in 1.1.3 
> which certainly applies in this case. Indeed, I suspect that it is 
> impossible to implement all of Annex D on any target other than a bare 
> machine. (One example is that there is no known implementation of EDF 
> scheduling even though Annex D seems to require it to be implemented.) 
> 
> Randy.

Well. You are confirming that I shouldn't expect the behavior I am looking for? How does linux do in this regard, I could use it if needed.