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, LOTS_OF_MONEY,MSGID_RANDY autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,71b19e01eae3a390 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Buz Cory Subject: Re: delay until and GNAT Date: 1999/05/06 Message-ID: <7grkbb$cee$1@nnrp1.deja.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 474647360 X-Operating-System: Linux, of course. References: <7gpukr$s82$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x9.dejanews.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 207.198.184.214 Organization: BuzCo Systems X-Article-Creation-Date: Thu May 06 08:36:59 1999 GMT Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.06 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.0.36 i586) Date: 1999-05-06T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <7gpukr$s82$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, dennison@telepath.com wrote: > In article , > "isaac buchwald" wrote: > > > > Does someone know the upper bound on the lateness of delay until > > and delay relative > > for Gnat implement. on Win95 , WinNT or Linux. > > I'm not sure there *is* an upper bound. What if a higher priority task is > running in a busy loop? That should be correct. There is no guarantee of *maximum* delay between *any* two statements in Ada. In particular, for "delay" and "delay until", the only guarantee is that the delay will have elapsed when the next statement executes. How long ago it might have elapsed is *not* guaranteed. This is pretty much true of any prioritized multi-tasking system. For a time-slicing system, you might reasonably expect that the "upper bound on the lateness of delay" will be some relatively small number times the maximum size of a slice (for 10 ms slices, it should be of the order of 1 sec or so). -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own