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: 103376,956e1c708fea1c33 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Tucker Taft Subject: Re: Looking for implementation idea Date: 1999/02/08 Message-ID: <36BF1604.771D16C7@averstar.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 441981539 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: news@inmet.camb.inmet.com (USENET news) X-Nntp-Posting-Host: houdini.burl.averstar.com References: <79n2dt$5n9$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Organization: AverStar (formerly Intermetrics) Burlington, MA USA Mime-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1999-02-08T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: dennison@telepath.com wrote: > > In article , > stt@houdini.camb.inmet.com (Tucker Taft) wrote: > > I'm curious -- where did you get the impression that protected > > types did not work on a multiprocessor? I'm wondering how common > > is this misconception... > > They look to me like they were *designed* to be usable for synchronization in > a parallel shared-memory architecture. Was that actually the case? They were designed to work in whatever environment supported the Ada run-time, be it parallel shared-memory, distributed memory, mono-processor, hypercube, etc. > T.E.D. -Tuck -- -Tucker Taft stt@averstar.com http://www.averstar.com/~stt/ Technical Director, Distributed IT Solutions (www.averstar.com/tools) AverStar (formerly Intermetrics, Inc.) Burlington, MA USA