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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,1a44c40a66c293f3 X-Google-Thread: 1089ad,7e78f469a06e6516 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,gid1089ad,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news2.google.com!news3.google.com!news.glorb.com!solaris.cc.vt.edu!news.vt.edu!elk.ncren.net!nntp.upenn.edu!newsserver.news.garr.it!newsserver.cilea.it!not-for-mail From: Colin Paul Gloster Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.vhdl Subject: Re: Embedded languages based on early Ada (from "Re: Preferred OS, processor family for running embedded Ada?") Date: 1 Mar 2007 16:09:41 GMT Organization: CILEA Message-ID: References: <1172192349.419694.274670@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1172239820.896603.222120@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: docenti.ing.unipi.it X-Trace: newsserver.cilea.it 1172765381 6978 131.114.28.20 (1 Mar 2007 16:09:41 GMT) X-Complaints-To: news@cilea.it NNTP-Posting-Date: 1 Mar 2007 16:09:41 GMT Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:9622 comp.lang.vhdl:7587 Date: 2007-03-01T16:09:41+00:00 List-Id: In news:pan.2007.03.01.11.23.01.229462@linuxchip.demon.co.uk.uk.uk timestamped Thu, 01 Mar 2007 11:22:32 GMT, "Dr. Adrian Wrigley" posted: "On Wed, 28 Feb 2007 17:20:37 +0000, Colin Paul Gloster wrote: ... > Dr. Adrian Wrigley wrote: > > " Something like this > might allow a "rebranding" of Ada (i.e. a new name, with full buzzword > compliance), and would be ideal to address the "new" paradigm of > multicore/multithreaded processor software, using the lightweight > threading and parallelism absent from Ada as we know it. For those who > know Occam, something like the 'PAR' and "SEQ" constructs are missing in > Ada." > > I really fail to see the relevance of multiple processors to > lightweight threading. ???? If you don't have multiple processors, lightweight threading is less attractive than if you do?" I was thinking that heavyweight processes -- whatever that term might mean, maybe involving many processes, each of which is working on processing intensive work without threads' unrestricted access to shared memory -- would be suitable for multiple processors. " Inmos/Occam/Transputer was founded on the basis that lightweight threading was highly relevant to multiple processors." I reread a little of occam2 and transputers for this post. I do not know much about them. I do not know. "Ada has no means of saying "Do these bits concurrently, if you like, because I don't care what the order of execution is"." How do you interpret part 11 of Section 9: Tasks and Synchronization of Ada 2005? (On WWW.ADAIC.com/standards/05rm/html/RM-9.html#I3506 : "[..] NOTES 11 1 Concurrent task execution may be implemented on multicomputers, multiprocessors, or with interleaved execution on a single physical processor. On the other hand, whenever an implementation can determine that the required semantic effects can be achieved when parts of the execution of a given task are performed by different physical processors acting in parallel, it may choose to perform them in this way. [..]") Dr. Adrian Wrigley wrote: " And a compiler can't work it out from the source. If your CPU has loads of threads, compiling code with "PAR" style language concurrency is rather useful and easy. -- Adrian" Maybe I will read more about this some time.