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: a07f3367d7,344faf475a6f812a X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Received: by 10.224.10.6 with SMTP id n6mr21239300qan.4.1366814428858; Wed, 24 Apr 2013 07:40:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.182.120.6 with SMTP id ky6mr693101obb.8.1366814428730; Wed, 24 Apr 2013 07:40:28 -0700 (PDT) Path: ef9ni16161qab.0!nntp.google.com!gp5no5635393qab.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2013 07:40:28 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <8131b9f6-c5ff-4b28-a2ae-599f4dcdda50@googlegroups.com> Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=66.126.103.122; posting-account=duW0ogkAAABjRdnxgLGXDfna0Gc6XqmQ NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.126.103.122 References: <97967083-d21d-4de2-aeb8-76d0d5818993@googlegroups.com> <8131b9f6-c5ff-4b28-a2ae-599f4dcdda50@googlegroups.com> User-Agent: G2/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Interresting difference in Normal-Returns/Expression-Functions and Extended-Returns. From: Adam Beneschan Injection-Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2013 14:40:28 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: 2013-04-24T07:40:28-07:00 List-Id: On Tuesday, April 23, 2013 10:56:46 PM UTC-7, egilhh wrote: > Well, I don't get this. I was trying to point out that without a 2 sec de= lay,=20 > there's a risk of running multiple tests in parallel. I don't know about = you, > but to me that's a bad thing, even if it's not production code.=20 When one writes code whose only purpose is to demonstrate a possible compil= er problem, or ask a question about why the language is the way it is, one = does not try to write good code. So what's the point of pointing out the f= laws in his code? The fact that the output of tests got mixed up isn't related to the symptom= the OP was talking about. His symptom pertained only to the order in whic= h one of the tests generated its own output. On the other hand, it's interesting to me that the output of the tests is g= etting mixed up, because that's the behavior I'd expect if the compiler was= determining task masters correctly. Simon, if I understood correctly, see= med to get a result where the output of the tests was *not* mixed up and a = block was waiting for its tasks to terminate before the program moved on to= the next test. That would indicate a compiler bug of some sort, if I unde= rstand the language rules properly. Interesting. -- Adam