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: 103376,5a05d88755a62a0e
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: bobduff@world.std.com (Robert A Duff)
Subject: Re: Asynchronous Transfer of Control
Date: 1996/10/17
Message-ID: <DzFAMr.6DG@world.std.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 190068226
references: <32656457.1A76@csehp1.mdc.com>
 <DzF1Fo.CJs.0.-s@inmet.camb.inmet.com>
organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-10-17T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


In article <DzF1Fo.CJs.0.-s@inmet.camb.inmet.com>,
Tucker Taft <stt@houdini.camb.inmet.com> wrote:
>Abort completion points are only important if the compiler does not
>support preemptive abort (D.6).  Ask your vendor whether they support
>preemptive abort (it is required if they support the Real-Time annex).

On Windows 95, the only way I can see to implement preemptive abort/ATC
is for the compiler to insert polling code all over the program (maybe
at every call, and at every backward jump?).  If true, this is horrible
-- operating systems of decades ago had proper support for this sort of
thing, but the latest and greatest doesn't.  Does any compiler do this?
Is there any better way to implement it on windows 95?  There's some
sort of kill-thread operation, but that would skip finalization.  I
think the situation is the same for OS/2.  What about windows/NT?

- Bob