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=0.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,MSGID_RANDY
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,cbd507df3efa824b
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-02-01 20:00:07 PST
Path: 
 supernews.google.com!sn-xit-02!supernews.com!nntp-relay.ihug.net!ihug.co.nz!news-hog.berkeley.edu!ucberkeley!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntp2.deja.com!nnrp1.deja.com!not-for-mail
From: Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-deja.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Help with Atomic_Components and whole array assignment
Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 03:45:56 GMT
Organization: Deja.com
Message-ID: <95dahj$184$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <94h55t$9a1$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <94hml1$o64$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
 <94hno6$p8s$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <3A76E455.AABF2490@averstar.com>
 <958o8f$vem$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <3A7886A7.F1BB5513@averstar.com>
 <95ctln$ff437$2@ID-25716.news.dfncis.de>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 205.232.38.14
X-Article-Creation-Date: Fri Feb 02 03:45:56 2001 GMT
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.61 [en] (OS/2; U)
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x51.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 205.232.38.14
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDrobert_dewar
Xref: supernews.google.com comp.lang.ada:4839
Date: 2001-02-02T03:45:56+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <95ctln$ff437$2@ID-25716.news.dfncis.de>,
  "Nick Roberts" <nickroberts@callnetuk.com> wrote:
> If it's any consolation Tuck

I doubt Tuck needs consolation at all, let alone from Nick :-)
:-)

> my interpretation of Volatile (nothing to do
> with Atomic) would always have been (and still is) that:
>
>    for i in A'Range loop
>       A(i) := 0;
>    end loop;
>
> where Volatile (or Volatile_Components) applied to A, would
> generate A'Length separate copies into memory, in whatever
> machine code it was.

Fine, but you cannot just state "your interpretation" without
backing it up with evidence from the RM.

> My interpretation of Atomic would be simply to avoid
> generating code that might bugger up multi-task access to the
> object Atomicked

But as you surely know, all Atomic objects are also Volatile,
so I don't see your point

> I propose a representation attribute, Storage_Operations

<<proposal snipped>>

This seems ill-conceived and far too complex. I don't see what
it would buy in terms of portable code. I think the paragraph
of implementation advice I suggested would be adequate to
achieve everything this more complex proposal does in practice.


Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/