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
Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!rosevax!ems!srcsip!jha
From: jha@srcsip.UUCP (Rakesh Jha)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Tasking Implementation Strategies
Message-ID: <268@altura.srcsip.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 6-Oct-87 16:57:53 EDT
Article-I.D.: altura.268
Posted: Tue Oct  6 16:57:53 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 10-Oct-87 17:42:12 EDT
Reply-To: jha@srcsip.UUCP ()
Organization: Honeywell, Inc. Systems & Research Center, Camden, MN
Keywords: Tasking Idioms
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>



Does anyone know of a commercial Ada compiler that employs the implementation
strategies proposed in the following papers:

    1. Habermann A.N. and Nassi J.R. "Efficient Implementations of Ada
       Tasks", TR CMU-CS-80-103, CMU, 1980

    2. Hilfinger P. "Implementation Strategies for Ada Tasking Idioms",
       Proceedings of the ACM AdaTech Conference on Ada, October 1982

I am particularly interested in the issues listed below:

    1. The compiler's ability to determine where the proposed strategies may
       be used.

    2. If the scheme calls for the programmer to inform the compiler by a
       pragma, the compiler's ability to detect programmer error.

    3. A quantitative indication of performance gains achieved, if any.

    4. In practical applications, the frequency of occurrence of Ada tasks for
       which one of the above strategies is applicable.


Rakesh Jha
Honeywell Systems and Research Center
Minneapolis, Minnesota
{ihnp4, philabs, umn-cs, ems}!srcsip!jha