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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,d5977aa20216d24a X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-04-02 10:31:20 PST Path: supernews.google.com!sn-xit-02!supernews.com!nntp-relay.ihug.net!ihug.co.nz!news-hog.berkeley.edu!ucberkeley!enews.sgi.com!newshub2.rdc1.sfba.home.com!news.home.com!news1.frmt1.sfba.home.com.POSTED!not-for-mail From: tmoran@acm.org Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Ada Tasks vs Linux processes References: X-Newsreader: Tom's custom newsreader Message-ID: <8H2y6.21501$ea6.2010619@news1.frmt1.sfba.home.com> Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 17:30:44 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.20.190.201 X-Complaints-To: abuse@home.net X-Trace: news1.frmt1.sfba.home.com 986232644 24.20.190.201 (Mon, 02 Apr 2001 10:30:44 PDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 10:30:44 PDT Organization: Excite@Home - The Leader in Broadband http://home.com/faster Xref: supernews.google.com comp.lang.ada:6360 Date: 2001-04-02T17:30:44+00:00 List-Id: >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.