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=0.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_DATE,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!lll-crg!nike!ucbcad!ucbvax!LLL-ICDC.ARPA!pearson%bud.DECnet
From: pearson%bud.DECnet@LLL-ICDC.ARPA ("BUD::PEARSON")
Newsgroups: net.lang.ada
Subject: Sharing processor between tasks.
Message-ID: <8609260920.AA12668@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>
Date: Wed, 24-Sep-86 11:55:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.8609260920.AA12668
Posted: Wed Sep 24 11:55:00 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 26-Sep-86 20:55:44 EDT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: "BUD::PEARSON" <pearson%bud.decnet@lll-icdc.arpa>
Organization: The ARPA Internet
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Somebody in UK-land with an address much too long to work asks why his
program, which defines two free-running tasks that do nothing but print
distinctive messages, prints only one of the two kinds of messages.

The answer is simply that Ada doesn't promise to time-slice tasks of
the same priority. LRM 9.8 says: "For tasks of the same priority, the
scheduling order is not defined by the language." DEC's VAX Ada seems
to follow the strategy of executing one task until it becomes unrunnable
or until a task of higher priority becomes runnable. Makes sense.

  -  Peter
(pearson%anchor.decnet@lll-icdc.arpa)
------