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: 103376,63360011f8addace X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-07-20 04:56:52 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail From: dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: gnat: time-slicing Date: 20 Jul 2002 04:56:52 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Message-ID: <5ee5b646.0207200356.38a57109@posting.google.com> References: <5ee5b646.0207161329.5c8e387b@posting.google.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 205.232.38.240 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1027166212 26660 127.0.0.1 (20 Jul 2002 11:56:52 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 20 Jul 2002 11:56:52 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:27271 Date: 2002-07-20T11:56:52+00:00 List-Id: "R. Tim Coslet" wrote in message news:... > Tasking is always potentially "dangerous"!!! > > That is why Ada provides the features it does to coordinate Tasks (e.g., > Protected Objects, requeue, abort, entry calls) and keep them from stepping > on each other's data structures. > > But no Tasking system (Ada or not) can ever be fully deterministic in what > runs when! That's really very misleading. It is of course possible to write deterministic tasking programs, even using only the core language with undefined dispatching semantics. If you are using an Annex D compiler with the appropriate pragmas, on a monoprocessor, the semantics are designed to be (and are) almost completely deterministic. The above statement reflects some pretty significant misunderstanding.