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: 103376,5a05d88755a62a0e
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: Asynchronous Transfer of Control
Date: 1996/10/16
Message-ID: <dewar.845516800@merv>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 190000780
references: <32656457.1A76@csehp1.mdc.com>
organization: New York University
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-10-16T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


iJames asks

"I reported it to the compiler vendor, and they pointed out to me from the
AARM (9.8) that I didn't have an abort completion point in my abortable
part.  I looked at the list of things that qualify, and sure enough I
don't.

Unless I am barking up the wrong tree or something, I really don't
understand this limitation.  Is this yet another example of an invalid
code sample in the Rationale?"

The rationale simply assumes you have immediate abort, if not this code
obviously will not work.