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,a011e82e0079f0ea X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-08-10 10:46:50 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!newsfeed.freenet.de!news-lei1.dfn.de!news-ham1.dfn.de!news.uni-hamburg.de!cs.tu-berlin.de!not-for-mail From: Stephan Heinemann Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Ravenscar Date: 10 Aug 2003 17:46:49 GMT Organization: Technische Universitaet Berlin, Deutschland Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: fiesta.cs.tu-berlin.de Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: news.cs.tu-berlin.de 1060537609 16836 130.149.17.156 (10 Aug 2003 17:46:49 GMT) X-Complaints-To: news@cs.tu-berlin.de NNTP-Posting-Date: 10 Aug 2003 17:46:49 GMT User-Agent: tin/1.4.6-20020816 ("Aerials") (UNIX) (SunOS/5.9 (sun4u)) Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:41306 Date: 2003-08-10T17:46:49+00:00 List-Id: The rational given for simple barriers is to guarantee a temporally deterministic bounded epilogue. I do not see the non-determinism. If a complex function call were made, this function could, of course, call other subprograms or even other protected entries (with the same complex epilogue). But the WCET of subprograms or the WCBT of protected entries can (?) be determined. So, I do not really understand the given reasoning. Of course, the RTSS can be more efficient without the need to reevaluate barriers. Stephan