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,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,5f0b2f174ad085de X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: robert_dewar@my-dejanews.com Subject: Re: tasking in Ada and Annex D question Date: 1999/02/02 Message-ID: <796v4e$16e$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 439731063 References: <793jl9$hf@drn.newsguy.com> <796jj7$5s2$1@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk> X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x4.dejanews.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 205.232.38.14 Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion X-Article-Creation-Date: Tue Feb 02 13:38:22 1999 GMT Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.04 [en] (OS/2; I) Date: 1999-02-02T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <796jj7$5s2$1@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk>, mgk25@cl.cam.ac.uk (Markus Kuhn) wrote: > They provide no concurrency when system calls block, > and they provide no parallelism on multiprocessor > machines, while the native linuxthreads do offer all > this. The FSU threads need supporting for at least a while for two reasons: 1. They are indeed the threads used for validation. 2. They may well be far more efficient, that is true on many targets, did you experiment with this aspect. A lot of people do not need concurrency with system calls (indeed a properly written portable Ada program cannot rely on such concurrency, since it is not guaranteed by the Ada standard), and if FSU threads are more efficient, they may be preferable for many real applications. In an effort to use shared libraries, be careful not to take away important functionality. If experiments show that the efficiency gain is small (I would suggest running the PIWG tests), then this is of course not a factor. -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own