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: 103376,5f0b2f174ad085de X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: tmoran@bix.com (Tom Moran) Subject: Re: tasking in Ada and Annex D question Date: 1999/02/03 Message-ID: <36b7a353.3314989@news.pacbell.net>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 439996295 References: <793jl9$hf@drn.newsguy.com> <7963h1$a6h$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> X-Complaints-To: abuse@pacbell.net X-Trace: typhoon-sf.pbi.net 918004800 207.214.211.114 (Tue, 02 Feb 1999 17:20:00 PDT) Organization: SBC Internet Services NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 02 Feb 1999 17:20:00 PDT Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1999-02-03T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: >I am in agreement with those who want tasks to block on I/O calls. An I/O >call must be considered a dispatching point, IMHO. Even a read from an already-in-memory buffer, or a write to a delayed-write cache? Or a rewind request issued to a tape drive? Do you want Sequential_IO.Read to implicitly include a dispatching point before doing any physical read, or before returning to the calling program, or what? And why make others use such a routine when you can write your own IO wrapper that includes a dispatching point?