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,FREEMAIL_FROM
	autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: a07f3367d7,385c146dd3112519
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,CP1252
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!a5g2000yqi.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Hibou57_=28Yannick_Duch=EAne=29?=
 <yannick_duchene@yahoo.fr>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Private or public task ?
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 00:29:53 -0800 (PST)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: <8bf887ec-38cc-4327-8cf6-38af4925e786@a5g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>
References: 
 <a35584dd-8693-484d-918d-758940dccfe8@d37g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>
	<hki3p7$bas$1@tornado.tornevall.net>
 <38a0a3f9-b4a0-48f3-98c9-63b03fe03aca@q4g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>
	<e714f043-9fed-4e2b-b3d2-180b0364f0cf@d27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>
	<f7048897-bce0-4e1d-8f49-85fe274d7292@v25g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>
	<narrkh.9g.ln@hunter.axlog.fr>
 <ca04a621-bdf9-4958-b395-6e59126e7511@x22g2000yqx.googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 86.75.149.66
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1265790593 4456 127.0.0.1 (10 Feb 2010 08:29:53
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 08:29:53 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: a5g2000yqi.googlegroups.com; posting-host=86.75.149.66;
	posting-account=vrfdLAoAAAAauX_3XwyXEwXCWN3A1l8D
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1;
	fr),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:9071
Date: 2010-02-10T00:29:53-08:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 10 f=E9v, 09:17, Maciej Sobczak <see.my.homep...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > There are two kinds of blockings: bounded and unbounded. The idea is
> > that when computing a time budget, you can account for bounded
> > blockings, but not unbounded ones.
> > The "potentially blocking" phrase should be understood as really meanin=
g
> > unbounded.
>
> Well, I know what you try to convey, but there are traps:
>
> =A0 =A0delay Some_Static_Constant;
>
> Is it bounded or unbounded?
>
> As far as WCET (or any other time-based analysis) goes, the above can
> be accounted for statically. Still, it is a no-no within any protected
> operation.
Interesting enigma

I would say Bounded, as it is predictable.
... as long as the delay is short, otherwise it will break the other
rule stating that a protected operation should be fast to execute.

If I try to have a delay X.Y in a protected operation, GNAT just warns
me =93 potentially blocking operation in protected operation =94, while
the program is still compiled.

You've said =93 it is a no-no within any protected =94 : do you get a
compilation error when you do the same ?

I've not seen anything in the Rationale nor in the ARM which
explicitly disallow it anyway (but as these are long pages I should
later read again, I may have miss it).