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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,1356f4179c1e4ef4
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: ADA task
Date: 1996/09/14
Message-ID: <dewar.842718568@schonberg>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 180618984
references: <5174qu$o1p@nr1.ottawa.istar.net>
 <51cjp0$q7k@watnews1.watson.ibm.com> <323A1FF2.2781@gsde.hso.link.com>
organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-09-14T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Samuel Harris

"Unfortunately, Ada 83 semantics specify only that the delay
will be at least as long as the delay. It can be more then
the delay (possible much more). It depends on the fidelity
of the runtime system, the desired frequency, and the load
caused by other tasks.
"

This is true from a formal point of view, but any decent Ada 83 compiler
that has any pretense to being usable for real time or simulation
purposes using tasking should provide an effective delay implementation
corresponding to the Ada 95 semantics.

If your Ada 83 comnpiler has a junk implementation of delay, I would
simply replace the compiler.