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: 103376,344faf475a6f812a X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Received: by 10.180.85.5 with SMTP id d5mr1174305wiz.0.1366730670566; Tue, 23 Apr 2013 08:24:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.182.34.169 with SMTP id a9mr365042obj.42.1366730670000; Tue, 23 Apr 2013 08:24:30 -0700 (PDT) Path: p18ni16883wiv.0!nntp.google.com!bx2no2452247wib.1!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 08:24:29 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=66.126.103.122; posting-account=duW0ogkAAABjRdnxgLGXDfna0Gc6XqmQ NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.126.103.122 References: <97967083-d21d-4de2-aeb8-76d0d5818993@googlegroups.com> User-Agent: G2/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Interresting difference in Normal-Returns/Expression-Functions and Extended-Returns. From: Adam Beneschan Injection-Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 15:24:30 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: 2013-04-23T08:24:29-07:00 List-Id: On Monday, April 22, 2013 11:32:51 PM UTC-7, egilhh wrote: > On Monday, April 22, 2013 8:27:09 PM UTC+2, Shark8 wrote: >=20 > > Return Result : Not Null Access Testing:=3D New Testing(New Strin= g'(Input)); >=20 >=20 >=20 > When the anonymous access type goes out of scope, it will block, waiting = for=20 > the newly created task to complete.=20 But why wouldn't that affect Make_EF/Make_ER and Make_NR equally? =20 I'm planning on delving into this further to figure out just what the rules= are with respect to anonymous access types, task termination, and scope. = You may be right, but I'm not yet convinced. (I mean, it's possible that t= his could explain the results with GNAT, but that doesn't mean GNAT is foll= owing the language correctly.) =20 > Not everyone has the same hardware as you, and your code may produce=20 > different results on less cores or slower computers. Adding a delay 2.0 a= s > Dmitry said, will reduce the likelyhood of that happening. I just don't get this. It's common for people asking questions about the l= anguage to post reduced cases or minimal code, i.e. to post the smallest co= de they can think of that demonstrates the problem. This is a good thing, = because it lets the rest of us focus on the actual question, rather than on= details that are irrelevant to the question. And everybody here is pickin= g on his example as if this were production code. Not to mention picking o= n his capitalization. Sheesh. -- Adam