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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,1356f4179c1e4ef4
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: bobduff@world.std.com (Robert A Duff)
Subject: Re: ADA task
Date: 1996/09/20
Message-ID: <Dy0AoA.2B1@world.std.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 184065856
references: <96091716583421@psavax.pwfl.com>
organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-09-20T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


In article <96091716583421@psavax.pwfl.com>,
Marin David Condic, 407.796.8997, M/S 731-93 <condicma@PWFL.COM> wrote:
>    I borrowed & modified this example from the Ada83 LRM (Section
>    9.6) and added a temporary variable to illustrate a point: The
>    computation of "Next - Calendar.Clock" is not "atomic". 

Right.  That's exactly why "delay until" was added.  There's still a
finite, non-zero, amount of time involved in waking up a delay-ed task,
but this particular race condition is fixed.

- Bob