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: 103376,3ccb707f4c91a5f2
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: Java vs Ada 95 (Was Re: Once again,
 Ada absent from DoD SBIR solicitation)
Date: 1996/11/04
Message-ID: <dewar.847124343@merv>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 194377017
references: <325BC3B3.41C6@hso.link.com>
 <EACHUS.96Nov1103759@spectre.mitre.org> <E07Dwq.5L@world.std.com>
 <55gkch$gg6@fozzie.sun3.iaf.nl> <E0B6CL.84r@world.std.com>
 <dewar.847053681@merv> <1996Nov4.072757.1@eisner>
organization: New York University
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-11-04T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Larry says

"Running under an operating system on a uniprocessor there clearly
must be a method of yielding to the lock-holder.  In a preemptive
scheduling environment this is automatic (although a yielding call
is more polite).  In a non-preemptive scheduling environment,
a simple call to yield the processor should suffice, and that
still leaves the overhead as approximately a memory read and
test."

This is still far too vague to know what you have in mind, and henbce
to determine if (a) it works and (b) it is likely to violate priority
rules. Please give clear details.