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=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD,
	FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,534dd301375921ac
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Received: by 10.68.191.225 with SMTP id hb1mr6175121pbc.5.1339766585777;
        Fri, 15 Jun 2012 06:23:05 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 l9ni53683pbj.0!nntp.google.com!news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: awdorrin <awdorrin@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Is Text_IO.Put_Line() thread-safe?
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 05:39:01 -0700 (PDT)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: <e8732914-3511-4b98-9264-4fd2473dd2c4@googlegroups.com>
References: <93201f1a-d668-485e-83b4-492bc283f36e@googlegroups.com>
 <jrdc48$14h2$1@adenine.netfront.net>
 <3fff1269-06f5-47a2-bc10-c2145b3a297d@googlegroups.com>
 <wcc395xzi3t.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 192.35.35.36
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1339766585 15798 127.0.0.1 (15 Jun 2012 13:23:05
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 13:23:05 +0000 (UTC)
In-Reply-To: <wcc395xzi3t.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=192.35.35.36;
 posting-account=YkFdLgoAAADpWnfCBA6ZXMWTz2zHNd0j
User-Agent: G2/1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Date: 2012-06-15T05:39:01-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Thursday, June 14, 2012 5:41:42 PM UTC-4, Robert A Duff wrote:
> awdorrin writes:
> 
> Sounds painful.  Perhaps you should try making the new system behave as
> much like the old one as possible.  For example, limit it to a single
> processor (which was probably the case 25 years ago).
> 
> - Bob

It has been quite challenging, interesting at times and incredibly frustrating at others.

I am currently binding the application to one CPU core, with a call to sched_setaffinity(). Or at least I thought I was... I'll have to verify that the setting is propagating to every thread... Thanks!