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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,4ef4bf3098ab117
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news2.google.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!not-for-mail
From: Nick Roberts <nick.roberts@acm.org>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Ada compiler differences
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 18:17:32 +0100
Message-ID: <2tnktdF1vq3q1U1@uni-berlin.de>
References: <mailman.38.1098277591.10401.comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: news.uni-berlin.de zb05PC1qluJKulxt6fIdmAheuYhNasqQg2mtoJ9gRKdshWXT0=
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US;
 rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040803
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
In-Reply-To: <mailman.38.1098277591.10401.comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org>
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:5536
Date: 2004-10-20T18:17:32+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Stephen Leake wrote:

> It could also be argued that the LRM _should_ say more about what is
> guarranteed to be task safe.

Annex A, paragraph 3 states:

   The implementation shall ensure that each language defined subprogram
   is reentrant in the sense that calls on the same subprogram perform as
   specified, so long as all parameters that could be passed by reference
   denote overlapping objects.

I believe subsequent discussions (mentioned in the AARM) have confirmed
that the 'objects' effectively include external files (although strictly
this is implementation defined).

The ARM 83 did not define what had to be task-safe, and I suspect this
is the source of the problems with some Ada 95 implementations.

-- 
Nick Roberts