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: 103376,2ef9ab4638027d85
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: Uninterruptible (atomic) operation?
Date: 1996/12/13
Message-ID: <dewar.850510889@merv>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 204501082
references: <9612111939.AA14087@most> <32abcb40.740498@news.demon.co.uk>
organization: New York University
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-12-13T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


iJohn McCabe said

"Just a brief note, but don't trust pragma shared (in Ada 83) to do
what would seem reasonable. I've learned through experience that this
is the case. The LRM 83 reference is very woolly. It's well worth
reading Robert Dewar's report on Shared Variables and Ada 9X issues
available from AdaIC on this matter."


Well I don't quite know what JMcC would or would not find as seeming
reasonable, but, assuming an implementation of Ada 83 that respected
any conceivable interpretation of what pragma Shared means, the
particular use suggested here is entirely safe and appropriate in 
Ada 83 (as it is for Atomic in Ada 95)