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: 103376,8c8bbb1419c8e81a
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: Waiver question
Date: 1997/04/30
Message-ID: <dewar.862381265@merv>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 238388159
References: <dewar.861594356@merv> <m2k9luibub.fsf@acm.org>
 <1997Apr28.151327.1@eisner> <5k52k2$7v0$1@news.nyu.edu>
Organization: New York University
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-04-30T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Richard Kenner said

<<The problem with these sequences is that they are not atomic.  That
is that problem that will be remedied on Alpha processors starting
with EV56.>>

Of course in Ada they do not *need* to be atomic -- if you waste a bit
of space to make sure stand alone objects are not too close together,
and the same in records.

You don't need to worry about atomic access in any packed structure of
course, and the standard string type is packed (i.e. it is erroneous
for one task to store the 3rd charater of a string while another task
loads the fourth character).

So it is definitely managable.