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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,2ef9ab4638027d85 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: john@assen.demon.co.uk (John McCabe) Subject: Re: Uninterruptible (atomic) operation? Date: 1996/12/09 Message-ID: <32abcb40.740498@news.demon.co.uk>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 203798955 x-nntp-posting-host: assen.demon.co.uk references: <9612111939.AA14087@most> newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-12-09T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: "W. Wesley Groleau (Wes)" wrote: >> In article bobduff@world.std.com (Robert A Duff) >> writes: >> <..snip..> >This is pretty close. But why do we need the lock? Isn't that implied >by Atomic/Shared? LRM 83 9.11 (11) "each of direct reading and direct >updating is implemented as an individual implementation." Just a brief note, but don't trust pragma shared (in Ada 83) to do what would seem reasonable. I've learned through experience that this is the case. The LRM 83 reference is very woolly. It's well worth reading Robert Dewar's report on Shared Variables and Ada 9X issues available from AdaIC on this matter. Best Regards John McCabe