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,fc232b1f37897ed0
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: "James S. Rogers" <jimmaureenrogers@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: D.10
Date: 1999/04/12
Message-ID: <7eu6ud$8lc$1@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 465704702
References: <m3ogkuuriu.fsf@mheaney.ni.net>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
X-Complaints-To: abuse@worldnet.att.net
X-Trace: bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net 923967245 8876 12.74.131.197 (13 Apr 1999
 01:34:05 GMT)
Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services
NNTP-Posting-Date: 13 Apr 1999 01:34:05 GMT
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1999-04-13T01:34:05+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Matthew Heaney wrote in message ...
>Paragraph D.10 (7) states that
>
>"The operations Set_True and Set_False are atomic with respect to each
>other and with respect to Suspend_Until_True..."
>
>
>Q: Is Suspend_Until_True atomic with respect to Suspend_Until_True?
>
>In 12.3.1 of Burns and Wellings, they state that a semaphore can be used
>to program mutual exclusion between two tasks, like this:
>

Why not implement this as a protected object instead of a task. Protected
operations are guaranteed to be atomic.

Jim Rogers
Colorado Springs, Colorado