Re: How can I avoid Using a Semaphore? (long)

["DuckE" <nospam_steved94@home.com>]

"Mark Lundquist" <mark@rational.com> wrote in message
news:95fbn7$njb$1@usenet.rational.com...
> Steve, sorry to take so long getting back to you.  You probably have it
all
> figured out by now...
>
> DuckE <nospam_steved94@home.com> wrote in message
> news:b89b6.298508$U46.9559869@news1.sttls1.wa.home.com...
>
>
> > >[mark wrote]
> > > I don't get it!  Can you explain that?  Are you talking about
> > > the "potentially blocking" rule?  I don't see how the scenario you
> > > described would run afoul of that rule, and I couldn't find anything
in
> > > your example code to help me understand what you meant...
> >
> > This is exactly the rule I'm talking about.
>
> Entries are potentially blocking, but protected subprograms are not.  You
> don't
> need entries in your protected reference count, right?  So you should be
OK?
>

Alas, I have been working under a misconception....

When I read: "During a protected action, it is a bounded error to invoke an
operation that is potentially blocking", I incorrectly assumed this included
anything that required mutual exclusion (such as protected procedures).

On reviewing 9.5.1 of the RM I see that this is definitely NOT the case.  In
9.5.1 the specific operations that are considered potentially blocking are
listed.

I re-wrote my packet buffer routine without the use of a semaphore.  I was
still somewhat concerned about protected operations performed within the
controlled operations of my "Packet", but I now realize that there is no
problem in this area.

SteveD