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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,a046ce7f5ee1fa51 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-12-04 17:31:15 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!nycmny1-snh1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!news-out.visi.com!hermes.visi.com!newsfeed1.earthlink.net!newsfeed.earthlink.net!stamper.news.pas.earthlink.net!newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Message-ID: <3DEEAC52.5000906@acm.org> From: Jeffrey Carter User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:1.0.0) Gecko/20020530 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: new_line in a put_line References: <1ec946d1.0212020657.2bd8b5c@posting.google.com> <3DEE33A5.8080709@acm.org> <3DEE3ED2.7070009@cogeco.ca> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2002 01:31:14 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 63.184.104.242 X-Complaints-To: abuse@earthlink.net X-Trace: newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net 1039051874 63.184.104.242 (Wed, 04 Dec 2002 17:31:14 PST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002 17:31:14 PST Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:31452 Date: 2002-12-05T01:31:14+00:00 List-Id: Warren W. Gay VE3WWG wrote: > > The Rendezvous has the benefit that the request to perform output > is queued. This results in greater efficiency on most platforms > because it avoids having threads wake up and test to see if they > won out on the condition variable set (protected object). I think you're mistaken. After performing a protected procedure or entry, it's perfectly legal for the same task to check the barriers of the object. I don't know about implementations, but this is certainly intended behavior for protected objects. Thus, tasks don't have to "wake up" until they are ready to run. > > It also guarantees "order". With the protected object approach a > "Johnnie come lately" task could gain access while already blocked > tasks are waiting to gain access -- destroying the waiting line > sequence. This may create some confusing to read "output". If you need to guarantee order for a protected operation it should be an entry. This guarantees the same order as for a task entry. -- Jeff Carter "You've got the brain of a four-year-old boy, and I bet he was glad to get rid of it." Horse Feathers