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,FREEMAIL_FROM,
	INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,5d05ccde5cefb836
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: "David Botton" <dbotton@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Blocking protected ops (was: Tasks and C/C++ code)
Date: 1998/11/27
Message-ID: <73mo00$24ik$1@news.gate.net>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 416255231
References: <364702E5.F6987321@hiwaay.net> <729ndu$jfo$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
 	<72b35b$pll$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <87btm52jwl.fsf@zaphod.enst.fr>
 	<3654746F.3C297E56@elca-matrix.ch> <87k90qunxl.fsf@zaphod.enst.fr>
 	<36599BE3.BA30555B@elca-matrix.ch> <3659b3a8.386623@news.pacbell.net>
 	<365AD980.5729FCD8@elca-matrix.ch> 	<EACHUS.98Nov24143823@spectre.mitre.org>
 	<365BE117.59209A5@elca-matrix.ch> <EACHUS.98Nov25183406@spectre.mitre.org>
 <x7vlnkzx7ok.fsf@pogner.demon.co.uk>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0
Organization: CyberGate, Inc.
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1998-11-27T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

After all the discussion on this issue, I am not sure how to implement a
call to gethosbyname any more.

Would some one post a correct implementation of this and if one can wrap
gethostbyname in to a protected type so it can be called by multiple task
instances even if it (gethostbyname) is not thread safe.

Thanks,
David Botton

Simon Wright wrote in message ...
>eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus) writes:
>
>> In article <365BE117.59209A5@elca-matrix.ch> Mats Weber
<Mats.Weber@elca-matrix.ch> writes:
>>
>>  > I don't think so. Look closely at 9.5.1(16&18). Subprograms imported
>>  > with pragma Import are not covered.
>>
>>    Eighteen only says that language-defined subprograms are not
>> potentially blocking unless the RM says otherwise.  Language-defined
>> here is a technical term applying to subprograms defined by the
>> Reference Manual.  Sixteen is the key here.  Within Ada, the RM can
>> define what is a potentially blocking subprogram, outside the
>> programmer has to figure it out for himself, which is why this is a
>> bounded error.
>
>I for one understood the language of 9.5.8 as meaning that _only_ the
>operations stated in 9-16 are 'potentially blocking', ie the list is a
>definition of what it is to be 'potentially blocking' and hence
>subject to possible checking by the runtime.
>
>There must be a difference between bad design and illegal design!