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,ab2ba9c5d12b0f12 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: jsa@alexandria (Jon S Anthony) Subject: Re: Concurrency in Gnat 3.05? Date: 1996/07/19 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 168905277 sender: news@organon.com (news) references: <4sjqte$3mu@masala.cc.uh.edu> <19960718.082642.172@satcom.whit.org> organization: Organon Motives, Inc. newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-07-19T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <4smktd$phu@masala.cc.uh.edu> cosc19z5@Bayou.UH.EDU (Spasmo) writes: > Ok, Time slicing -- whatever :). Still, with Linux I could easily > write C programs that used time slicing on my processor courtesy The point is that time slicing behavior is system dependent. For example, GNAT on Solaris maps tasks to threads and they will behave as you were expecting (switching context for IO, etc.). I believe that GNAT for Linux will do this too (I think the P-threads impl to which tasks are mapped on Linux are "real" threads in this sense - but I'm not sure). Actually, GNAT running on anything with native threads will probably work this way. For example, GNAT for Win95 and NT maps tasks to Win95 and NT threads and this should again give you what you expect. Actually, that brings up another point. Since you have Win95 why are you running the DOS version of GNAT under a DOS window instead of just using the native Win95? /Jon -- Jon Anthony Organon Motives, Inc. 1 Williston Road, Suite 4 Belmont, MA 02178 617.484.3383 jsa@organon.com