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,FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD,
	FREEMAIL_FROM,REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
	version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,4fe1e6b66c35dfe2
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: mockturtle <framefritti@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: About task-safeness
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2011 13:14:43 -0800 (PST)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: 
 <3195b61d-e545-454d-8516-4ba16b490df0@glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com>
Reply-To: comp.lang.ada@googlegroups.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: 93.37.249.9
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1296681284 28169 127.0.0.1 (2 Feb 2011 21:14:44
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2011 21:14:44 +0000 (UTC)
In-Reply-To: <op.vqanciallzeukk@jellix.jlfencey.com>
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=93.37.249.9;
 posting-account=9fwclgkAAAD6oQ5usUYhee1l39geVY99
User-Agent: G2/1.0
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:16826
Date: 2011-02-02T13:14:43-08:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Wednesday, February 2, 2011 10:01:20 PM UTC+1, Vinzent Hoefler wrote:
> mockturtle wrote:
> 
> >   * Am I granted (maybe by some obscure paragraph of our beloved RM ;-) that the standard
> > packages are task-safe? (I would be surprised if they weren't, but it is nice to be sure...)
> 
> Well, ARM 05, A(3/2) says:
> 
> |The implementation shall ensure that each language-defined subprogram is reentrant in
> |the sense that concurrent calls on the same subprogram perform as specified, so long
> |as all parameters that could be passed by reference denote nonoverlapping objects.
> 
> Apart from that, you probably have to trust the programmer - or some tool.

Thank you, that is what I needed.  Of course, who writes the libraries could make a mistake and make some function non-reentrant, but at least the implementation is not permitted to choose a non-reentrant solution by design.