From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.5-pre1 (2020-06-20) on ip-172-31-74-118.ec2.internal X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_40,FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.5-pre1 X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:1424:: with SMTP id k4mr11098728qkj.299.1623571490903; Sun, 13 Jun 2021 01:04:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 2002:a25:cb48:: with SMTP id b69mr17700629ybg.173.1623571490634; Sun, 13 Jun 2021 01:04:50 -0700 (PDT) Path: eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.uzoreto.com!tr2.eu1.usenetexpress.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr3.iad1.usenetexpress.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2021 01:04:50 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=2001:1c00:c1d:4b00:6504:2af1:1ca4:316f; posting-account=-iT6ZQoAAAAlqBCInAc-vB6x1soT8Jhq NNTP-Posting-Host: 2001:1c00:c1d:4b00:6504:2af1:1ca4:316f References: <1d798609-8b73-4bc6-b74f-e435e8af8fedn@googlegroups.com> User-Agent: G2/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: Subject: Re: non-preemptive tasking on GNAT 2020 Windows 10 multicore AMD From: darek Injection-Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2021 08:04:50 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:62211 List-Id: On Sunday, 13 June 2021 at 08:20:08 UTC+2, Randy Brukardt wrote: > "AdaMagica" wrote in message > news:1d798609-8b73-4bc6...@googlegroups.com... > > Dmitry A. Kazakov schrieb am Samstag, 12. Juni 2021 um 17:57:39 UTC+2: > >> Because under Windows the default priority is in the time sharing class. > >> As the name suggests such threads are preempted when the their quant > >> expires. AFAIK, even a lower priority thread can preempt a higher > >> priority one if both are time sharing. Time sharing priority only > >> influences the duration of the quant and the chances to gain the > >> processor. > > > > Hm OK. Is this compatible with the Ada RM? > Not really, at least in an Annex D sense. (The core doesn't require much, in > part so Ada will work on a wide variety of targets.) Pretty much everyone > has agreed to ignore the impossibility of implementing Annex D on Windows -- > remember that there is an "impossible or impractical" exception in 1.1.3 > which certainly applies in this case. Indeed, I suspect that it is > impossible to implement all of Annex D on any target other than a bare > machine. (One example is that there is no known implementation of EDF > scheduling even though Annex D seems to require it to be implemented.) > > Randy. Hi All, It could be useful for Ada community - a bit different (and refreshing) approach : https://www.research-collection.ethz.ch/bitstream/handle/20.500.11850/154828/eth-47094-02.pdf Darek