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: 103376,956e1c708fea1c33 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: dennison@telepath.com Subject: Re: Looking for implementation idea Date: 1999/02/08 Message-ID: <79n2dt$5n9$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 441843123 References: X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x13.dejanews.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 204.48.27.130 Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion X-Article-Creation-Date: Mon Feb 08 16:12:55 1999 GMT Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.5 [en] (WinNT; I) Date: 1999-02-08T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article , stt@houdini.camb.inmet.com (Tucker Taft) wrote: > Corey Minyard (minyard@acm.org) wrote: > > : ... > : One question for the Ada experts: Ada protected types don't work in > : SMP since they are task priority based, do they? > > Ada protected types *do* work on a multi-processor. > > I'm curious -- where did you get the impression that protected > types did not work on a multiprocessor? I'm wondering how common > is this misconception... They look to me like they were *designed* to be usable for synchronization in a parallel shared-memory architecture. Was that actually the case? T.E.D. -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own