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,FREEMAIL_FROM
	autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,4fe0da28a190b761
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!c22g2000prc.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: sjw <simon.j.wright@mac.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Storage management
Date: Sat, 8 Nov 2008 03:04:24 -0800 (PST)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: 
 <c69aec9a-cb89-426c-9f64-3c223ba0d389@c22g2000prc.googlegroups.com>
References: 
 <87fxmbog1u.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de><wccej1vw07f.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
	<87abciurrl.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> <gf04q8$nfm$1@jacob-sparre.dk>
	<13hpf6ht4tl2m$.1su6rgr67eb2o$.dlg@40tude.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 62.49.19.209
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1226142264 5838 127.0.0.1 (8 Nov 2008 11:04:24
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 8 Nov 2008 11:04:24 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: c22g2000prc.googlegroups.com; posting-host=62.49.19.209;
	posting-account=_RXWmAoAAADQS3ojtLFDmTNJCT0N2R4U
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10_5_5; en-us)
	AppleWebKit/525.18 (KHTML,
 like Gecko) Version/3.1.2 Safari/525.20.1,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:2621
Date: 2008-11-08T03:04:24-08:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Nov 7, 8:30=A0am, "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mail...@dmitry-kazakov.de>
wrote:
> I have a general question. Does anybody use abort and asynchronous transf=
er
> of control?
>
> After all, there is no chance to have them reasonably working anyway. The
> notorious example from ARM 9.7.1:
>
> select
> =A0 =A0delay 5.0;
> then abort
> =A0 =A0Get_Line (...);
> end select;
>
> has good chances not to work.

I've used this for test code where the idea was to demonstrate that
the abortable_part didn't get blocked like it used to.

Also, in deliverable code -- the abortable_part was waiting for a PO
to be triggered by an interrupt (or not).

Personally I've found no need to worry about problems with Get_Line in
the abortable_part.