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=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD,
	FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Received: by 2002:a6b:7d09:: with SMTP id
 c9-v6mr1416167ioq.18.1537617493512;
        Sat, 22 Sep 2018 04:58:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:aca:ec87:: with SMTP id k129-v6mr29488oih.2.1537617493395;
 Sat, 22 Sep 2018 04:58:13 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!border1.nntp.ams1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!feeder2.cambriumusenet.nl!feeder1.cambriumusenet.nl!feed.tweak.nl!209.85.166.216.MISMATCH!x81-v6no186333ita.0!news-out.google.com!z5-v6ni183ite.0!nntp.google.com!x188-v6no185361ite.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2018 04:58:13 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <lyzhwagghi.fsf@pushface.org>
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com;
 posting-host=176.10.164.41;
 posting-account=IWGXAgoAAAAN22gxH4FLrPfxoHPdumnx
NNTP-Posting-Host: 176.10.164.41
References: <da1f586e-51e6-4e1d-9935-eabd7b12b484@googlegroups.com>
 <ccd06577-72c0-401b-9fa7-2ee321a675b4@googlegroups.com>
 <3390a545-8996-4e6c-9b82-4f132e5935c4@googlegroups.com>
 <lyzhwagghi.fsf@pushface.org>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <87607b42-f38c-406d-9711-b4ed79cd6321@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Watchdog-Timer Assignment
From: Alex <henningssonalex@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2018 11:58:13 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:54407
Date: 2018-09-22T04:58:13-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

> Well, the program doesn't start out on a whole wall-clock second, so I
> don't see why it need sync to the wall clock only if a procedure misses
> its deadline! You may say "but it's a requirement"; but it's the sort of
> requirement that needs to be properly justified, not handed down on
> tablets of stone.
> 
> Would be just as reasonable to run in whole seconds from program
> start-up (I've moved over to a Ravenscar mindset, at least as far as
> time stuff is concerned, so used to not having relative delay
> statements).

I wrote the exact instructions in an answer here. I think I need a delay in f3 that interrupts the program for the remaining time from Current Time to Next Whole Second. But I am not sure, that's why I am stuck.