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: <79n3bi$6bu$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 441844640 References: <36BD749B.DA735DB7@umundum.vol.at> <1999Feb7.152252.1@eisner> <79ldf2$sc3$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x13.dejanews.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 204.48.27.130 Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion X-Article-Creation-Date: Mon Feb 08 16:28:47 1999 GMT Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.5 [en] (WinNT; I) Date: 1999-02-08T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <79ldf2$sc3$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, dewar@gnat.com wrote: > If a program assumes that an active high priority task > which does not block will guarantee that low priority tasks > make no progress at all (a guarantee that MUST be true on > a mono-processor for a compiler that fully implements the > real time annex (*)) then you have a program which will > work only on a single processor. > (*) Of course not all compilers fully implement the real > time annex, including the important FIFO_Within_Priorities > dispatching policy that makes this guarantee. For example, Isn't it possible that a compiler implementing that annex has a default dispatching policy (not FIFO_Within_Priorities of course) that doesn't make this guarantee? I suppose you could force it to work on said system (again, on a single processor), by specifing FIFO_* policy rather than using the default. T.E.D. -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own