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=0.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_05,INVALID_DATE
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!think!ames!pasteur!ucbvax!eg.ti.COM!LINNIG
From: LINNIG@eg.ti.COM (Mike Linnig)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: >> Are we losing something here?
Message-ID: <8802192026.AA12919@ajpo.sei.cmu.edu>
Date: 19 Feb 88 16:08:00 GMT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The Internet
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Given the current interpretation of Ada priorities and
preemptive scheduling, it seems that compiler vendors that supported
priority levels but not preemptive scheduling now have
two choices...

1. Modify their runtime to support preemptive scheduling.

  	This may be expensive or impossible if the underlying hardware
	does not have time driven interrupts.

2. Restrict priorities to be a single number (i.e. disable pragma
   priority)

My question is... are we losing something here?   Is there
a value to having multiple priorities even if we don't 
have preemptive scheduling?


	Mike Linnig,
	Texas Instruments