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=0.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_DATE, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,98caa5b030058ecf X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1994-10-31 05:00:46 PST Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!EU.net!uunet!newsflash.concordia.ca!nstn.ns.ca!nstn.ns.ca!nntp-user From: Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Say it isn't so! (Formerly: Ada replacements for DOS I/O) Date: 31 Oct 1994 08:51:59 -0400 Organization: Nova Scotia Technology Network Sender: news@nstn.ns.ca Message-ID: <45723.cwarwick@fox.nstn.ns.ca> Reply-To: NNTP-Posting-Host: owl.nstn.ns.ca X-Minuet-Version: Minuet1.0_Beta_14.1 X-POPMail-Charset: English Date: 1994-10-31T08:51:59-04:00 List-Id: On Fri, 28 Oct 1994 11:59:00 PDT, Bennett, Chip wrote: >We use SunAda (aka Verdix) with Motif. Does this mean that if an >application is drawing to the screen and number crunching at the same time >in a separate Ada task, that the "background" task is going to be suspended >for the same I/O interrupts that the "foreground" task is being suspended? Well my experiments under SCO and Verdix have shown me that a blocking OS call, i.e. READ, will halt both the foreground and background task until it has completed... (my data is not yet complete, when I hit the problem on DOS I went over and quickly checked on the SCO box) >Does everyone else consider this acceptable, or am I the only one that is >appalled? I don't hold any view. My plan is to switch to Unix processes on the SCO and avoid the problem altogether... so much for system independance -- Lorne Elliot in a Conan the Barabarian suit, or "Beware the fool, for only the fool may speak the truth" Chris Warwick cwarwick@fox.nstn.ns.ca warwick@anchor.hfx.prior.ca