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,cbd507df3efa824b X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-01-31 19:31:12 PST Path: supernews.google.com!sn-xit-02!supernews.com!nntp-relay.ihug.net!ihug.co.nz!news-hog.berkeley.edu!ucberkeley!enews.sgi.com!newshub2.rdc1.sfba.home.com!news.home.com!news1.sttls1.wa.home.com.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "DuckE" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada References: <94h55t$9a1$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <3A6C2CDD.67FD79DC@baesystems.com> <94hfaq$h3n$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <94hn5p$on4$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <3A76E3B9.BD806841@averstar.com> <9570ko$fg1$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <95Nd6.343422$U46.10481049@news1.sttls1.wa.home.com> <9589fj$k66$1@nnrp1.deja.com> Subject: Re: Help with Atomic_Components and whole array assignment X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Message-ID: <3M4e6.350290$U46.10572562@news1.sttls1.wa.home.com> Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 03:31:11 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.6.221.63 X-Complaints-To: abuse@home.net X-Trace: news1.sttls1.wa.home.com 980998271 24.6.221.63 (Wed, 31 Jan 2001 19:31:11 PST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 19:31:11 PST Organization: Excite@Home - The Leader in Broadband http://home.com/faster Xref: supernews.google.com comp.lang.ada:4796 Date: 2001-02-01T03:31:11+00:00 List-Id: Thank you. I have sent a request to the ARG to introduce this implementation advice. SteveD "Robert Dewar" wrote in message news:9589fj$k66$1@nnrp1.deja.com... [snip] > > That's irrelevant, since the AARM is not an official document. > The only way to resolve confusion on this issue is to send a > comment following the RM procedures, and have the ARG address > the issue. > > I would think that the appropriate approach would be to > introduce implementation advice, something to the effect > > Implementation Advice > --------------------- > > A load or store of an atomic object should, where possible, > be implemented by a single load or store instruction which > accesses exactly the bits of the object and no others. The > implementation should document those instances in which > it is not possible to follow this advice. > > ----------- > The reason this should be IA is that in IA, we are allowed > to talk about things like load and store instructions, and > we can intepret a statement like this in a helpful pragmatic > manner, whereas if it appeared as a formal requirement, it > would be meaningless (since it contains many undefined terms, > and would be susecptible to the as-if semanitc interpretation > which we specifically do NOT want in this case). > > I think it is quite reasonable to consider adding some > IA of this kind. I suspect that most implementations can > follow this easily enough -- what is missing is documentation > of when it is not possible. > > > Sent via Deja.com > http://www.deja.com/