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,FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Received: by 10.236.230.73 with SMTP id i69mr1319027yhq.27.1418904563090; Thu, 18 Dec 2014 04:09:23 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.140.39.39 with SMTP id u36mr26189qgu.17.1418904563074; Thu, 18 Dec 2014 04:09:23 -0800 (PST) Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!mx02.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feeder01.blueworldhosting.com!peer02.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!s7no8842786qap.1!news-out.google.com!r1ni70qat.1!nntp.google.com!i13no187096qae.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2014 04:09:22 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=185.30.132.97; posting-account=hya6vwoAAADTA0O27Aq3u6Su3lQKpSMz NNTP-Posting-Host: 185.30.132.97 References: <455d0987-734a-4505-bb39-37bfd1a2cc6b@googlegroups.com> <8277a521-7317-4839-b0b6-97f8155be1a4@googlegroups.com> <9e1d2b9f-1b97-4679-8eec-5ba75f3c357c@googlegroups.com> User-Agent: G2/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <478c81f9-5233-4ae1-a3eb-e67c4dbd0da1@googlegroups.com> Subject: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Re=3A_GNAT=A0and_Tasklets?= From: vincent.diemunsch@gmail.com Injection-Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2014 12:09:23 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Received-Bytes: 3233 X-Received-Body-CRC: 3174885431 Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:24113 Date: 2014-12-18T04:09:22-08:00 List-Id: Le jeudi 18 d=E9cembre 2014 12:19:50 UTC+1, Dmitry A. Kazakov a =E9crit=A0: > On Thu, 18 Dec 2014 02:32:44 -0800 (PST), vincent.diemunsch@gmail.com > wrote: >=20 > > Finaly, I really hope that the new version of the langage will keep Ada > > simple and add "intelligence" in compilers and not add different new > > features with : > > - tasks for kernel threads > > - coroutines or tasklets for user-level threads > > - jobs for lightweight threads, > > because this would be a major conceptual regression. I believe that > > aspects on tasks could be an inelegant but decent way to solve the > > problem. >=20 > Ideally yes, but if you consider the implications, you will have to > reconsider protected actions and rendezvous. E.g. a protected action > interlocking co-routines driven by the same thread do not need locking. D= o > you want to get advantage from this? Or, a rendezvous between them is a > deadlock? Statically resolved? What with exception propagation on both > ends? Forbidden? etc. >=20 > --=20 > Regards, > Dmitry A. Kazakov > http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de yes, this is not a trivial issue. It needs a real study. It would be interesting to do a little survey on existing code using taskin= g. I have the impression that only tasks at Library level do rendez-vous and p= rotected object synchronisation, and local tasks, most of the time, are lim= ited to a rendez-vous with their parent task at the beginning or at the end= . So maybe we should put restrictions on local tasks, so that we can map th= em to jobs. This situation can be compared to Ravenscar restrictions, that allowed to u= se fast, predictable tasking. Kind regards, Vincent