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=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD, FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,cae92f92d6a1d4b1 X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII Path: g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!o11g2000prf.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: jpwoodruff Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Ada.Execution_Time Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 19:54:38 -0800 (PST) Organization: http://groups.google.com Message-ID: <8d8532a2-ce7a-4295-b7eb-8cdbc201e8a2@o11g2000prf.googlegroups.com> References: <4d05e737$0$6980$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net> <4D093646.1000003@obry.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.229.204.85 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1292471679 9711 127.0.0.1 (16 Dec 2010 03:54:39 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 03:54:39 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: o11g2000prf.googlegroups.com; posting-host=71.229.204.85; posting-account=eLk0BgoAAAA-yA75xm1L7heSizMaESVg User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101203 Firefox/3.6.10 NET_mmhpset ( .NET CLR 3.5.30729),gzip(gfe) Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:15974 Date: 2010-12-15T19:54:38-08:00 List-Id: I learn that Ada.Execution_Time isn't widely implemented, so there isn't a lot of point to pursue a portable abstraction. I'm thinking I might as well revert to Gautier's Windows implementation. The draft I posted y'day is probably no more portable than that one. On Dec 15, 2:42=A0pm, Pascal Obry wrote: > > Probably because the stack size is smaller in the context of tasking > runtime. Just increase the stack (see corresponding linker option) for > the environment task. Nothing really blocking or I did I miss your point? > That is clearly the case. Still, I'm non-plussed that I can't write a service - CPU.Counter in the example - that can hide its implementation from the host program. It occurs to me that the designers of the D.14 specification for Ada.Execution_Time did not consider the prospect of measuring a single environment task's performance. Otherwise the package might be factored so that function Clock did not presume multiple tasks. Here's a flippant suggestion: maybe there should be a pragma to set stack size. I'd bury such a pragma inside package CPU so the Ada.Execution_Time doesn't get linked into too-small an executable. If I could do that, my user doesn't get a stack splat from an instrument that worked correctly while running smaller tests. John