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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,c2dda499a002ec3c X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-04-10 10:24:03 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.cwix.com!newscon01.news.prodigy.com!newsmst01.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!postmaster.news.prodigy.com!newssvr30.news.prodigy.com.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Pat Rogers" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada References: <3CA2A827.11140295@adaworks.com> Subject: Re: rendez-vous underlying mechanism X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: 208.191.177.131 X-Complaints-To: abuse@prodigy.net X-Trace: newssvr30.news.prodigy.com 1018459430 ST000 208.191.177.131 (Wed, 10 Apr 2002 13:23:50 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 13:23:50 EDT Organization: Prodigy Internet http://www.prodigy.com X-UserInfo1: [[OUS^[BTRU[RID[N[OJNW@@YJ_ZTB\MV@BZMVMHQAVTUZ]CLNTCPFK[WDXDHV[K^FCGJCJLPF_D_NCC@FUG^Q\DINVAXSLIFXYJSSCCALP@PB@\OS@BITWAH\CQZKJMMD^SJA^NXA\GVLSRBD^M_NW_F[YLVTWIGAXAQBOATKBBQRXECDFDMQ\DZFUE@\JM Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 17:23:50 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:22324 Date: 2002-04-10T17:23:50+00:00 List-Id: "Kevin Cline" wrote in message news:ba162549.0204100919.7cfc14dc@posting.google.com... > "Pat Rogers" wrote in message news:... > > > I was certainly surprised > > > when I attempted to create a separate task for I/O but found that > > > all tasks blocked anyway because they were mapped to a single Unix thread. > > > On that implementation Ada multi-tasking was uselsss for solving > > > problems routinely handled with Posix threads. > > > > Agreed; an undesirable implementation if the option of mapping tasks to Pthreads > > was not available, but that's my point -- that was a given implementation that I > > don't believe is not the norm today. > > It doesn't matter much whether it's the norm. If the language standard > doesn't guarantee any useful semantics then programs that use the > Ada tasking model for the aforementioned purpose are not portable > across compilers. If you expect a language standard -- any language standard -- to specify such a mapping to an operating system implementation you will remain "surprised".