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 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,af960bc705aaf51b X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-03-02 17:11:06 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail From: dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Complexity of protected objects Date: 2 Mar 2002 17:11:06 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Message-ID: <5ee5b646.0203021711.2c64c56d@posting.google.com> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: 205.232.38.14 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1015117866 25832 127.0.0.1 (3 Mar 2002 01:11:06 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 3 Mar 2002 01:11:06 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:20708 Date: 2002-03-03T01:11:06+00:00 List-Id: "Marin David Condic" wrote in message news:... > I don't know of any natural limitations that would make > it A Bad Thing to have a very large protected object. > AFAIK, its only a concern for how long > it will block execution of other tasks that limit size. There are none > The rest would be > whatever limitations your compiler may impose. A compiler that imposes arbitrary limits on the complexity of protected types is broken (of course in specialized subsets, like Ravenscar, such restrictions may serve a specific purpose). Remember that the key point about protected objects is the ceiling priority protocol, which ensures that higher priority tasks can still freely interrupt the lower priority tasks inside a PO with a lower CP. Thus it is quite reasonable to use complex PO's with a low CP for communication between low priority tasks without any danger of intefering with high priority tasks (even in an implementation that has no locks).