From: tmoran@acm.org
Subject: Re: Ada Tasks vs Linux processes
Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 17:30:44 GMT
Date: 2001-04-02T17:30:44+00:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <8H2y6.21501$ea6.2010619@news1.frmt1.sfba.home.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: b%Nx6.4387$mA.1548299@newsrump.sjc.telocity.net
>As far as delay 0.0 is concerned, it should yield the CPU to another
>task, if there's one ready to run. Generally, though, I use
>delay Duration'Small instead of delay 0.0;
LRM D.9(7) says the implementation must document the minimum delay
value that actually causes the task to block, while D.9(5) says a
delay of zero does not block, but is only "potentially blocking".
Even among compilers that don't implement Annex D, delay 0.0 usually
does not unnecessarily block, while any positive delay usually blocks
for two clock ticks, which on some systems can be a surprisingly long
time.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2001-04-02 17:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2001-04-01 15:27 Ada Tasks vs Linux processes Frank
2001-04-01 22:32 ` David C. Hoos, Sr.
2001-04-02 17:30 ` tmoran [this message]
2001-04-02 18:00 ` Robert A Duff
2001-04-02 18:20 ` Ehud Lamm
2001-04-02 22:17 ` Jeffrey Carter
2001-04-04 16:36 ` tmoran
2001-04-04 17:18 ` Gary Scott
2001-04-04 19:18 ` tmoran
2001-04-02 19:57 ` Frank
2001-04-03 11:28 ` Matthias Kretschmer
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox