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: 103376,9e0bbf455a705f51
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: bobduff@world.std.com (Robert A Duff)
Subject: Re: Erroneous concurrent operations on hidden objects
Date: 1996/11/21
Message-ID: <E187sG.Int@world.std.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 197830542
references: <mazzanti-2011961559220001@131.114.200.115>
organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-11-21T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


In article <mazzanti-2011961559220001@131.114.200.115>,
Franco Mazzanti <mazzanti@iei.pi.cnr.it> wrote:
>I still cannot see the difference between the case of two tasks
>performing a "Put" operation on standard outut, where a hidden object
>representing the "file" is concurrently updated, and the case of two tasks 
>concurrently calling "new" (or an instance of unchecked deallocation) on 
>the same storage pool, where a hidden variable associated to the pool 
>is concurrently updated [RM-13.11(2)].

I agree that the RM isn't quite clear on this point, but I'm pretty sure
the above is the "intent".

- Bob