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-Thread: 103376,1ce6fddc56263182 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news2.google.com!news2.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!wns13feed!worldnet.att.net!attbi_s22.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail From: "Jeffrey R. Carter" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Ravenscar and run-time program parameters References: <1188373703.936484.105650@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-2; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.201.97.213 X-Complaints-To: abuse@mchsi.com X-Trace: attbi_s22 1188404267 12.201.97.213 (Wed, 29 Aug 2007 16:17:47 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 16:17:47 GMT Organization: AT&T ASP.att.net Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 16:17:47 GMT Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:1594 Date: 2007-08-29T16:17:47+00:00 List-Id: Jean-Pierre Rosen wrote: > > Yes, there is a lot of pretty nice things that you can't do under > Ravenscar constraints. That's the price for safety. If you've ever looked at the Ravenscar implementation of a simple bounded blocking queue between a producer and a consumer task, you know that it's much more complex and difficult to get right than using a protected object with 2 entries. However, for analysis of the code, the Ravenscar version is apparently better. For some SW, that is a price worth paying, especially if you use RavenSPARK and can be confident in the correctness of the code. But for others, I'd be more confident of the correctness of the version with 2 entries. -- Jeff Carter "Don't knock masturbation. It's sex with someone I love." Annie Hall 45