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: a07f3367d7,a4db0fc323f0b09e
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news1.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!newsfeed.straub-nv.de!feeder.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!not-for-mail
From: Reto Buerki <reet@codelabs.ch>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Barrier re-evaluation issue with GNAT 4.3.2
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 16:05:29 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID: <h9qfr2$r84$1@news.eternal-september.org>
References: <h9g8mf$v4f$1@news.eternal-september.org>
 <nospam-E7CE69.11564625092009@news.aioe.org>
 <h9q34o$odd$1@news.eternal-september.org>
 <nospam-E1A743.08392828092009@news.aioe.org>
 <h9qdfj$6vp$1@news.eternal-september.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: news.eternal-september.org
 U2FsdGVkX19USWzmOq4Xn3cyg3tCJdVO4oNc+IrMfr6uFWyEV5On3dkAjy3A4nlm+UtO6Ty35CqqPY1JMHXguFDfpgFcCR2A26vH+ZuD4VQgqnoetgGbSZwXSJlz8gt5IlL3gBWiBievmzr63yCdKg==
X-Complaints-To: abuse@eternal-september.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 14:05:22 +0000 (UTC)
In-Reply-To: <h9qdfj$6vp$1@news.eternal-september.org>
X-Auth-Sender: U2FsdGVkX19jJeTP49lQT1WueWcvSROZ6BOMsZVv4A0=
Cancel-Lock: sha1:8WCdivTglkm90wpl6R3pzJJGCIw=
User-Agent: Mozilla-Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (X11/20090706)
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:8514
Date: 2009-09-28T16:05:29+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Reto Buerki wrote:
> John B. Matthews wrote:
>> I am troubled by the "potentially blocking operation" warning. Two 
>> things make me think it may be irrelevant: 1) Signal does not actually 
>> block, except to dequeue waiters, and 2) Wakeup, which enters Signal, is 
>> itself a protected procedure:
>>
>> <http://www.adaic.com/standards/05rm/html/RM-D-15.html>
>>
>> I'd welcome critical thoughts.
> 
> We are not getting such a warning with our code, but we are not using
> "requeue" since our scenario is different.

Update: we just noticed that the warning actually *does* show up but we
missed it in the previous build.

I also think the warning is irrelevant. It seems that the compiler is
not smart enough to figure out that the Signal() entry is always open.