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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,d1106806fae00ae8,start
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: rgedela@ernie.eecs.uic.edu (Ravi Gedela)
Subject: Ada tasking issues
Date: 1996/06/06
Message-ID: <4p7418$hi2@news.eecs.uic.edu>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 158808976
organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
keywords: ATC
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-06-06T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


: 
I'm Ravi Gedela. I'm a graduate student at EECS Dept., Univ. of 
Illinois at Chicago. 

I've been looking at Ada95 lately. I'm trying to model the Ada95
 tasking constructs using petrinets. Could anyone let me know if
 there are any papers published already in this area. 

I've some questions regarding the behavior of some constructs. 
I'd be thankful if you can take some time and clarify the 
following.

Asynchronous Transfer of Control

During ATC let us consider when the triggering statement is an
 entry call.  If the abortable part completes before the entry
 call is accepted and returned, then it is aborted. It is clear
 when the entry call is still in the queue that it is taken 
away from the queue.

But now if the call has been accepted and is being processed 
and the abortable part is completed an attempt to cancel the 
call is made. The Ada95 reference manual does not clearly 
explain what happens in such a situation. Could you please let
 me know how exactly the call that is being processed can be 
retracted.

Thanking you,

Ravi

PS : Please feel free to reply to my personal account  
E-mail : rgedela@eecs.uic.edu