From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.5-pre1 (2020-06-20) on
	ip-172-31-74-118.ec2.internal
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.5-pre1
Date: 2 Aug 93 01:57:19 GMT
From: ddciiny!jls@uunet.uu.net  (Jonathan Schilling)
Subject: Re: Query about monitor (passive) task optimization
Message-ID: <CB403J.74M@ddciiny.UUCP>
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <23corr$a8g@schonberg.cs.nyu.edu> dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) wr
ites:
>Mike assumes that automatic recognition of passive tasks is a good thing.
>He is apparently unaware that this is by no means obvious, and indeed most
>of the Ada folks in realtime areas that I have talked to do not AT ALL like
>the idea of such automatic recognition, and much prefer explicit control
>over thread structure.

I've heard of these objections before, but I don't fully understand them. 
Assuming the optimization is transparent to the programmer, and does not 
in any way change the semantics of the program, what "control" is being
lost?  From within the program, using only standard Ada, one wouldn't
even be able to detect whether the optimization had happened or not 
(this might be doable with CIFO-type interfaces, depending on the
runtime system implementation).  The only difference is that the program
runs faster.

-- 
Jonathan Schilling
DDC-I, Inc.
uunet!ddciiny!jls