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,f15aeba9975c472f X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-10-01 13:07:29 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!newsmi-us.news.garr.it!NewsITBone-GARR!news.mailgate.org!newsfeed.stueberl.de!eusc.inter.net!cs.tu-berlin.de!not-for-mail From: Stephan Heinemann Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Protected Entry Call Semantics Date: 1 Oct 2003 20:07:27 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 1065038847 9516 130.149.17.156 (1 Oct 2003 20:07:27 GMT) X-Complaints-To: news@cs.tu-berlin.de NNTP-Posting-Date: 1 Oct 2003 20:07:27 GMT User-Agent: tin/1.4.6-20020816 ("Aerials") (UNIX) (SunOS/5.9 (sun4u)) Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:81 Date: 2003-10-01T20:07:27+00:00 List-Id: > I don't think that there is any problem here. During the completion of > the first protected action of the triggering task all the entry queues > are serviced (9.5.1(7)), so the waiting task will get past the barrier > at this point. So the fact that the barrier may become closed later > isn't going to stop it executing. (If I have understood your question > correctly.) Thank you Phil for the reference in 9.5.1. I again tested the situation with a triggering task that opens and closes a barrier without being preempted by the waiting task. Afterwards the waiting task got running, it obtained the value corresponding to the opened barrier. The waiting task - without being preempted again - accessed the protected object in its response code and obtained the new value corresponding to the closed barrier... I just was not sure whether this behaviour depends on the implementation or not. But now there is a reference I can rely on. Again, thanks! Stephan