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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news3.google.com!feeder1-2.proxad.net!proxad.net!feeder1-1.proxad.net!217.188.199.168.MISMATCH!takemy.news.telefonica.de!telefonica.de!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool3.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>
Subject: Re: Barrier re-evaluation issue with GNAT 4.3.2
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/2.0.15.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de
Organization: cbb software GmbH
References: <h9g8mf$v4f$1@news.eternal-september.org>
 <qheeig65rowe.1x18w150lpl1q.dlg@40tude.net>
  <sv%um.246578$ZN.73934@newsfe23.iad>
 <rcfj2mz9pjnu$.pem92yd9ybip.dlg@40tude.net>
 <3695a362-5c8f-460e-808e-007bdcac3cd0@e34g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2009 12:31:26 +0200
Message-ID: <gtf3y2x7c77y$.ouvkvkcb1tii.dlg@40tude.net>
NNTP-Posting-Date: 25 Sep 2009 12:31:26 CEST
NNTP-Posting-Host: aa6b5891.newsspool4.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=c3Pj1S;=PV\PU8j_I0DN6_4IUK<Cl32<Q4Fo<]lROoRQ^YC2XCjHcbYZ=VChLc0C2YDNcfSJ;bb[UFCTGGVUmh?TLK[5LiR>kgR>A0PQD]ToGZ
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:8464
Date: 2009-09-25T12:31:26+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 02:57:42 -0700 (PDT), Ludovic Brenta wrote:

> Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote on comp.lang.ada:
>> Timing_Events does not have any advantages over delay or asynchronous
>> transfer of control. I guess it was provided for some low-level stuff like
>> interrupts from hardware timers. However there was already a support for
>> interrupts mapped into protected operations, so it really puzzles me why
>> Timing_Events were added.
> 
> The reasons are explained in AI95-297. It seems you've never written
> any low-level code before, or cared about it?

... cared not to write lower-level code. (:-))

> [1] http://www.ada-auth.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/ais/ai-00297.txt?rev=1.25

The example of changing task priorities looks artificial to me. I don't
think a "normal" concurrent applications could benefit from Timing_Events.
There were much more pressing problems than this one (making tasks and
protected objects tagged, working task components of controlled objects
etc.)

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de