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,ca9c3c589691f97e
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: "David C. Hoos, Sr." <david.c.hoos.sr@ada95.com>
Subject: Re: Delay guarantees
Date: 1999/05/20
Message-ID: <7i1vbt$gf0@hobbes.crc.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 480289506
References: <7i1m4b$cb1$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
Organization: Coleman Research Corporation
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3612.1700
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1999-05-20T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


fmanning@my-dejanews.com wrote in message <7i1m4b$cb1$1@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>If you have a delay relative statement, does the delay argument
>guarantee a minimum delay? For example:
<snip>
>Suppose the delay argument is equivalent to a single clock tick, and
>the delay is executed just before a tick? Can delay return just after
>the tick? If so, the actual time delay could be essentially 0.
>
Well, I can't speak for other compilers, but I know that the VADS
compiler (Ada83) on IRIX added the value of one clock tick internally to
guarantee meeting the requirement.