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,e0e1d3b3f7c994b8
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news4.google.com!news.germany.com!news.ecp.fr!news.jacob-sparre.dk!pnx.dk!not-for-mail
From: "Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Robert Dewar's great article about the Strengths of Ada over
 other langauges in multiprocessing!
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 15:51:40 -0500
Organization: Jacob's private Usenet server
Message-ID: <fr472t$su2$1@jacob-sparre.dk>
References: <13t4b2kkjem20f3@corp.supernews.com>
 <89af8399-94fb-42b3-909d-edf3c98d32e5@n75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>
 <47D39DC8.20002@obry.net>
 <f56d577b-e396-44fc-9b0a-25dcb2311ad2@n36g2000hse.googlegroups.com>
 <1lbnckly14ak1$.1toakcw8jw12$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <ec684efe-61a6-4463-bd43-fb5895e868bc@x30g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: static-69-95-181-76.mad.choiceone.net
X-Trace: jacob-sparre.dk 1205182365 29634 69.95.181.76 (10 Mar 2008 20:52:45
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: news@jacob-sparre.dk
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 20:52:45 +0000 (UTC)
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1914
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1914
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:20279
Date: 2008-03-10T15:51:40-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Vadim Godunko" <vgodunko@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ec684efe-61a6-4463-bd43-fb5895e868bc@x30g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 9, 4:37 pm, "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mail...@dmitry-kazakov.de>
> wrote:
> >
> > It is unclear in which the context you are using protected objects. I
don't
> > see why a protected object should be slower than, say, critical section
+
> > operation.
> >
> I have attach all source code. Protected object used for atomic
> reference counting (The design may be looks strange, I just have plans
> to replace protected object by the inline assembler code).

If you need an atomic component, why didn't you just declare it as such and
let the compiler handle the mess? (Yes, an implementation is allowed to
reject pragma Atomic if it can't handle such, but that should always be OK
for an integer counter.) A protected object is going to be much heavier than
Atomic (which just uses the hardware support directly).

...
    type Private_Data is record
       --Counter : aliased League.Internals.Atomics.Counter;
       Counter : Natural := 0;
       pragma Atomic (Counter);
       String  : Utf16_String_Access;
       Last    : Natural := 0;
       Length  : Natural := 0;
    end record;

(No, I haven't tried this in your program.)

                                  Randy.