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-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,7001494ace46eea7
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-09-20 09:00:12 PST
Path: archiver1.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail
From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Overriding discriminants perplexes GNAT 3.14p
Date: 20 Sep 2002 09:00:12 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
Message-ID: <b4682ab7.0209200800.6a4fdd11@posting.google.com>
References: <ama2bm$404hu$1@ID-77047.news.dfncis.de>
 <un0qfb624.fsf@gsfc.nasa.gov> <amc58u$4ebgo$1@ID-77047.news.dfncis.de>
 <b4682ab7.0209191022.43137826@posting.google.com>
 <amerh4$5b11r$2@ID-77047.news.dfncis.de>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.126.103.122
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1032537612 3437 127.0.0.1 (20 Sep 2002 16:00:12
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: 20 Sep 2002 16:00:12 GMT
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:29224
Date: 2002-09-20T16:00:12+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Dmitry A.Kazakov <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> wrote in message news:<amerh4$5b11r$2@ID-77047.news.dfncis.de>...
> Adam Beneschan wrote:

> > I think GNAT's behavior is legitimate here.  Protected entry calls and
> > external requeues start new "protected actions" on the target
> > protected object (9.5.3(8), 9.5.4(11)).  Thus, when
> > Objects.Object1.Point1 is called, a new protected action is started on
> > Object1.  When this requeues to Object2.Point1, a new protected action
> > is started on Object2; however, the protected action on Object1 does
> > not complete (AI95-00148). 
> 
> Really? 9.5.4(10) says explicitly (for an internal requeue) that the 
> ongoing action continues., but following it 9.5.4(11) keeps silence about 
> that. From which I would assume that the ongoing action is replaced by a 
> new one. If not, then a task may simultaneously perform an unlimited number 
> of protected actions! I see no sense in that, and moreover, it would make 
> external requeues almost useless.

See http://www.ada-auth.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/AIs/AI-00148.TXT?rev=1.2
for the official word on the matter.

				-- Adam