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=-1.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,
	PP_MIME_FAKE_ASCII_TEXT autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,30dd116614f4610e
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!news.in2p3.fr!in2p3.fr!news.ecp.fr!news.jacob-sparre.dk!pnx.dk!not-for-mail
From: "Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Protected Objects And Many Processors
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2011 23:16:53 -0600
Organization: Jacob Sparre Andersen Research & Innovation
Message-ID: <ihdp87$r70$1@munin.nbi.dk>
References: <4d39cbde$0$6882$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net>
 <ihcp5i$s5$1@tornado.tornevall.net> <op.vpodylunule2fv@garhos>
NNTP-Posting-Host: static-69-95-181-76.mad.choiceone.net
X-Trace: munin.nbi.dk 1295673415 27872 69.95.181.76 (22 Jan 2011 05:16:55 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: news@jacob-sparre.dk
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2011 05:16:55 +0000 (UTC)
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5931
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Response
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:16631
Date: 2011-01-21T23:16:53-06:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Yannick Duch�ne (Hibou57)" <yannick_duchene@yahoo.fr> wrote in message 
news:op.vpodylunule2fv@garhos...
Le Fri, 21 Jan 2011 20:55:22 +0100, Jeffrey Carter
<spam.jrcarter.not@spam.not.acm.org> a �crit:
>> 2. Protected functions can return indefinite types with actual values 
>> determined by the function; task entries are constrained to the size of 
>> objects provided by the caller.
>Ah, I see. There is indeed nothing like a real function with tasks, and 
>will not allocate on the caller's stack.
>But there is still room to return a reference to some dynamically 
>allocated memory, even indirectly, or no ? (I do not see anything which 
>would prohibit this, although I did not try it)

Right, but remember that the storage pool from which allocated memory comes 
is a global object that requires synchronization. So if you use that sort of 
solution, you have done nothing to solve the synchronization problem (you 
may have moved it to the storage pool, but it is still there).

                        Randy.