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=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,1583af5ff29435e5
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.cygnus.argh.org>
Subject: Re: Dynamic allocation of tasks
Date: 2000/03/22
Message-ID: <87ya7aewb8.fsf@deneb.cygnus.argh.org>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 600934479
References: <87r9d3gvix.fsf@deneb.cygnus.argh.org>
 <8basg1$627$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
Mail-Copies-To: never
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Complaints-To: abuse@cygnus.argh.org
X-Trace: deneb.cygnus.argh.org 953746923 7037 192.168.1.2 (22 Mar 2000
 17:42:03 GMT)
Organization: Penguin on board
User-Agent: Gnus/5.0804 (Gnus v5.8.4) Emacs/20.6
Mime-Version: 1.0
Reply-To: Florian Weimer <fw-usenet@deneb.cygnus.argh.org>
NNTP-Posting-Date: 22 Mar 2000 17:42:03 GMT
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 2000-03-22T17:42:03+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-deja.com> writes:

> > I found no way to complete a task before its allocator
> completes.
> 
> terminate task (e.g. abort it), then use unchecked
> deallocation (see RM D.12(4)).

I tried this (with GNAT 3.12p), and it didn't work (there was a resource
leak, of both memory and kernel threads IIRC).  After reading the RM,
I was convinced that I couldn't expect an implementation to support
this, but a more careful study revealed that it's probably reasonable
to expect this behavior (abort of task causes abnormal completion of
the task body, but it *does* cause completion, which means the task
body is finalized next, and, after that, it is terminated).

What's the effect of an abort statement if the task in question is
blocked in a syscall (such as read(2))?