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=1.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_20,INVALID_DATE autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!decwrl!ucbvax!ELCGL.EPFL.CH!madmats From: madmats@ELCGL.EPFL.CH ("", Mats Weber) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: abort statement and exception handlers Message-ID: <901101102851.03p@sic.epfl.ch> Date: 1 Nov 90 09:28:00 GMT Sender: usenet@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Organization: The Internet List-Id: Question on the design of the abort statement: >From LRM 9.10: The completion of any other abnormal task need not happen before completion of the abort statement. It must happen no later than when the abnormal task reaches a synchronization point that is one of the following: the end of its activation; a point where it causes the activation of another task; an entry call; the start or the end of an accept statement; a select statement; a delay statement; an exception handler; or an abort ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ statement. [....]. Does anybody know why exception handlers were included in this list ? All other items in the list have something to do with tasking (that is, they require a call to the run time system), but an exeption handler might very well be supported by hardware. Mats Weber Swiss Federal Institute of Technology EPFL DI LGL 1015 Lausanne Switzerland E-mail : madmats@elcgl.epfl.ch phone : +41 21 693 52 92 fax : +41 21 693 39 09