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=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD,
	FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Path: 
 border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!enother.net!enother.net!peer02.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!post02.iad.highwinds-media.com!fx03.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Shark8 <OneWingedShark@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64;
 rv:36.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/36.0a1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: C versus Ada (once again :-)), was: Re: F-22 ADA Programming
References: <a510f410-56ea-46a6-9f3c-021a2389b936@googlegroups.com>
	<f4e05c1d-e52e-44f1-84e1-3814e526c469@googlegroups.com>
	<m2jvqm$qpc$2@dont-email.me>
	<dfa977d6-1458-4d8a-b226-15a759e321d6@googlegroups.com>
	<220f97ab-9aa2-4961-b140-2b271c3ab99a@googlegroups.com>
	<slrnm4ulto.nrc.lithiumcat@nat.rebma.instinctive.eu>
	<m2on9t$tv6$1@dont-email.me>
	<99759c3f-a35f-4745-a8fd-2fb6ab6fb1aa@googlegroups.com>
	<m2p0g5$4d0$1@dont-email.me>
	<48dc1630-8e7d-4e29-8bdd-53d74932d9d0@googlegroups.com>
	<m2pakq$99g$1@dont-email.me>
	<88a7f98c-55c2-4b5f-8a9d-c8b7512781c8@googlegroups.com>
	<m2ptm9$h8a$2@dont-email.me>	<pgdzu6hi3mcu.kx0szqbevtow$.dlg@40tude.net>
	<m2r7k7$2m2$2@dont-email.me>
	<50cacb19-5d0b-4dbe-b91b-0b3b462913d6@googlegroups.com>
	<m2tnoi$j1q$4@speranza.aioe.org>
	<07d0ad94-160b-4873-ba1b-403e8c0bc420@googlegroups.com>
	<m2vlg9$onb$1@dont-email.me>
 <m31iit$74m$1@dont-email.me> <874mugsbhl.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de>
In-Reply-To: <874mugsbhl.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <STS5w.353302$Hb3.343492@fx03.iad>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@teranews.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2014 21:58:10 UTC
Organization: TeraNews.com
Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2014 14:58:06 -0700
X-Received-Bytes: 2475
X-Received-Body-CRC: 3991678210
Xref: number.nntp.giganews.com comp.lang.ada:190315
Date: 2014-11-03T14:58:06-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 03-Nov-14 05:40, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Simon Clubley:
>
>> As I keep saying in one way or another:
>>
>> 	Ada: nice language, lousy compiler situation.
>
> If you are trying to parallelize your programs for performance
> reasons, Ada (as standardized) is not such a nice language anymore
> because it lacks a modern memory model (which reflects the variations
> of existing hardware) and access to various forms of atomic
> instructions with well-defined properties.
>

Isn't the atomic instruction thing properly recognized as platform 
dependent? If that's the case, then should it be part of Ada, or would 
it be acceptable to have a machine-language (e.g. System.Machine_Code) 
insert for handling it in the implementation part of some package?

(Would such atomic instructions need to be incorporated at the Run-time 
level?)