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,LOTS_OF_MONEY autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,6f69b1cf0f02b9ac X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-02-02 19:01:23 PST Path: supernews.google.com!sn-xit-02!sn-xit-01!supernews.com!newshub2.rdc1.sfba.home.com!news.home.com!news1.sttls1.wa.home.com.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "DuckE" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada References: <94hoeu$puk$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <95fbn7$njb$1@usenet.rational.com> Subject: Re: How can I avoid Using a Semaphore? (long) X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Message-ID: <6wKe6.366046$U46.10797174@news1.sttls1.wa.home.com> Date: Sat, 03 Feb 2001 03:01:22 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.6.221.63 X-Complaints-To: abuse@home.net X-Trace: news1.sttls1.wa.home.com 981169282 24.6.221.63 (Fri, 02 Feb 2001 19:01:22 PST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 19:01:22 PST Organization: Excite@Home - The Leader in Broadband http://home.com/faster Xref: supernews.google.com comp.lang.ada:4903 Date: 2001-02-03T03:01:22+00:00 List-Id: "Mark Lundquist" wrote in message news:95fbn7$njb$1@usenet.rational.com... > Steve, sorry to take so long getting back to you. You probably have it all > figured out by now... > > DuckE wrote in message > news:b89b6.298508$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