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,ab2ba9c5d12b0f12
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: mfeldman@seas.gwu.edu (Michael Feldman)
Subject: Re: Concurrency in Gnat 3.05?
Date: 1996/07/24
Message-ID: <4t47tp$8sr@felix.seas.gwu.edu>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 169846975
references: <4sjqte$3mu@masala.cc.uh.edu> <JSA.96Jul19133310@alexandria>
 <4ss86l$30v@felix.seas.gwu.edu> <JSA.96Jul22171928@alexandria>
organization: George Washington University
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-07-24T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


In article <JSA.96Jul22171928@alexandria>,
Jon S Anthony <jsa@alexandria> wrote:

>Yes, sure.  But, I think that in many ways what was being asked about
>and expected was the sort of behavior that OS threads implementations
>provide.  In particular, that an IO does not block _the program_, only
>the task.  From this perspective, while it might not matter wrt to the
>correctness of the program if this is true, it definitely matters wrt
>to the user of the program and its intended use and possibily even its
>usability.  So, whether it "matters" is not simply an issue of
>"correctness"...

Yes, this is a good point. The thread started with a question on GNAT/_DOS_,
in which I don't think the _threads_ implementation is non-blocking.
Such an implementation would be hard in DOS. 

This comes back to Dewar's answer about GNAT being built over whatever
threads support the OS provides.

Mike Feldman