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=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD,
	FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,3abdc4d72c0b7e9d
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!s33g2000pri.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: Bender <Jeffrey.S.Morrison@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Running a background task
Date: Fri, 16 May 2008 07:34:45 -0700 (PDT)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: 
 <407cd1fb-82a5-4caa-8974-6f10a39b8aae@s33g2000pri.googlegroups.com>
References: 
 <f47b5be0-7488-439e-903a-d16cbd4116f2@z24g2000prf.googlegroups.com>
	<9n4Xj.111458$TT4.6745@attbi_s22>
 <a296dff1-13bf-4591-b399-ae68dd88f780@u6g2000prc.googlegroups.com>
	<P78Xj.165826$yE1.60240@attbi_s21>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 130.76.64.93
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1210948485 27691 127.0.0.1 (16 May 2008 14:34:45
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 16 May 2008 14:34:45 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: s33g2000pri.googlegroups.com; posting-host=130.76.64.93;
	posting-account=znprRwoAAABc0sBerLGAFs7TqvGvhALp
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.6)
	Gecko/20070725 (CK-zz) Firefox/2.0.0.6,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:102
Date: 2008-05-16T07:34:45-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On May 15, 10:32 pm, "Jeffrey R. Carter"
<spam.jrcarter....@spam.acm.org> wrote:
> Yes, IIUC. When the rendezvous ends, at "end On_String", both tasks continue
> (conceptually) in parallel. Handle_Msg will continue with the next statement
> after the call to Status_Task.On_String, and the Status_Task will continue into
> the loop. I think this is what Beneschan meant by 'move the loop out of the
> "accept"'.
>
> If you have fewer tasks than processors, it's possible to write code such that a
> task that is ready to run never executes ("starvation"), but that's probably not
> something that you need to worry about.

Just wanted to confirm that moving the loop outside of the accept
block did indeed work the way I needed it to.  Thanks to everyone for
your help.