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: 103376,83e2886f2be41271 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: cosc19z5@Bayou.UH.EDU (Spasmo) Subject: Re: Tasks in Gnat3.05 for Dos? Date: 1996/07/21 Message-ID: <4su2km$dt4@masala.cc.uh.edu>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 169333645 references: <4sev09$dik@masala.cc.uh.edu> <31EBF352.530E@bunsen.ds.boeing.com> <4sjtvr$42n@masala.cc.uh.edu> organization: University of Houston newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-07-21T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Robert Dewar (dewar@cs.nyu.edu) wrote: : "Yep found that out (how I missed it I'll never know). Now it : compiles and runs, but the tasks don't run concurrently :(" : Of course they don't run concurrently, you are on a single processor : machine. Furthermore, in accordance with the required semantics of : the real time annex, the scheduling is run-till-blocked. If you : are thinking that I/O should be overlapped -- you won't get this : in DOS, DOS does not take kindly to multi-threading. : What exactly are you expecting that you do not see? Timeslicing. IN any case that's not to be as many folks have told me, and now that I've started working on some tasking code, I find that it's actually a good thing since it's better that I implement my own atomic slicing based on units of work via different entries. -- Spasmo "Here's a present just for you When you open it, you'll be through" "Letter Bomb" by the Circle Jerks