Re: Concurrency in Gnat 3.05?

[jsa@alexandria (Jon S Anthony)]

In article <4t47tp$8sr@felix.seas.gwu.edu> mfeldman@seas.gwu.edu (Michael Feldman) writes:

> In article <JSA.96Jul22171928@alexandria>,
> Jon S Anthony <jsa@alexandria> wrote:
> 
> >Yes, sure.  But, I think that in many ways what was being asked about
> >and expected was the sort of behavior that OS threads implementations
> >provide.  In particular, that an IO does not block _the program_, only
> >the task.  From this perspective, while it might not matter wrt to the
> >correctness of the program if this is true, it definitely matters wrt
> >to the user of the program and its intended use and possibily even its
> >usability.  So, whether it "matters" is not simply an issue of
> >"correctness"...
> 
> Yes, this is a good point. The thread started with a question on GNAT/_DOS_,
> in which I don't think the _threads_ implementation is non-blocking.
> Such an implementation would be hard in DOS. 
> 
> This comes back to Dewar's answer about GNAT being built over whatever
> threads support the OS provides.

Agreed.  This is precisely why I raised the point to the poster (Spasmo,
I think) that since he had Win95 (he was running his DOS as a window
under this) he might find the native version of Gnat for Win95 more
to his liking because it does map to native Win95 threads and they
"do the right thing" in this respect.

/Jon
-- 
Jon Anthony
Organon Motives, Inc.
1 Williston Road, Suite 4
Belmont, MA 02178

617.484.3383
jsa@organon.com