From: "Ehud Lamm" <mslamm@mscc.huji.ac.il>
Subject: Re: Ada Tasks vs Linux processes
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 21:20:15 +0300
Date: 2001-04-02T21:20:15+03:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <9aajmv$h8t$1@news.huji.ac.il> (raw)
In-Reply-To: wccd7avw5al.fsf@world.std.com
[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 529 bytes --]
> Right, but "delay 0.0;" will cause the task to go to the end of its
> ready queue, so if there's any other task of the same priority waiting
> to run, it will run. So "delay 0.0;" does what some systems call
> "yield". (Assuming Annex D.)
>
To quote the LRM:
The execution time of a delay_statement that does not cause the task to be
blocked (e.g. �delay 0.0;� ) is of interest in situations where delays are
used to achieve voluntary round-robin task dispatching among equal-priority
tasks. (D.9 (14))
Ehud Lamm
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2001-04-02 18:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2001-04-01 15:27 Ada Tasks vs Linux processes Frank
2001-04-01 22:32 ` David C. Hoos, Sr.
2001-04-02 17:30 ` tmoran
2001-04-02 18:00 ` Robert A Duff
2001-04-02 18:20 ` Ehud Lamm [this message]
2001-04-02 22:17 ` Jeffrey Carter
2001-04-04 16:36 ` tmoran
2001-04-04 17:18 ` Gary Scott
2001-04-04 19:18 ` tmoran
2001-04-02 19:57 ` Frank
2001-04-03 11:28 ` Matthias Kretschmer
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox