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=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,1096a7986b560ad6
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Mats Weber <Mats.Weber@elca-matrix.ch>
Subject: Re: In Exception ?
Date: 1998/04/09
Message-ID: <352D0231.E98A0106@elca-matrix.ch>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 342463471
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <35214b7a.0@news.profinet.at> <6g7fpc$l08$1@usenet.rational.com>
 <6gcjru$7im@drn.newsguy.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Reply-To: Mats.Weber@elca-matrix.ch
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Organization: ELCA Matrix SA
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1998-04-09T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


nabbasi@earthlink.net.NOSPAM wrote:

> this takes care of synch. between tasks. but what about interrupts?
> an interrupt could occur anytime, and it also could establish an
> exception, and could end up in it ,  so this would lead
> to a race condition also on the global variable.

What do you mean by interrupt ? I think the above is wrong.

I don't see how you can end up in an exception handler asynchronously.
Asynchronous transfer of control is not defined in terms of exceptions (see RM
9.7.4). Or am I missing something ?

(Ada 80 had an asynchronous transfer of control mechanism based on exceptions,
but it never got implemented in a widespread compiler, and was removed form
Ada 83).