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
Path: 
 eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Termination of periodic tasks
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2014 18:44:48 +0200
Organization: cbb software GmbH
Message-ID: <k4bw956nq1hk.1fbqgpp5xu777$.dlg@40tude.net>
References: <slrnlpqs89.i0l.lithiumcat@nat.rebma.instinctive.eu>
 <lnkj3d$jkf$1@dont-email.me>
 <slrnlptu84.i0l.lithiumcat@nat.rebma.instinctive.eu>
 <lnn8bb$i9s$1@dont-email.me>
 <slrnlpvpmv.i0l.lithiumcat@nat.rebma.instinctive.eu>
 <toighlp8lhhu.yx4nrtt784jm$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <slrnlpvsl2.i0l.lithiumcat@nat.rebma.instinctive.eu>
 <a1wv6jbm09et.1x4jn9fg3e0ds.dlg@40tude.net>
 <slrnlq00tr.i0l.lithiumcat@nat.rebma.instinctive.eu>
 <1d268gqj2j3ck$.zuhlkzretdfb.dlg@40tude.net> <lnpkkr$7kt$1@dont-email.me>
Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de
NNTP-Posting-Host: AuYlnUSfTZrfhAkRjyySpQ.user.speranza.aioe.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org
User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/2.0.15.1
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2
Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:20399
Date: 2014-06-17T18:44:48+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Tue, 17 Jun 2014 16:51:07 +0200, J-P. Rosen wrote:

> Le 17/06/2014 14:55, Dmitry A. Kazakov a écrit :
>> I am not a language lawyer and cannot tell if this schema must work or not. 
> It won't
> 
>> The RM is silent about the order in which tasks are awaited. If the tasks
>> shall be able to complete in any possible order this must be considered
>> illegal. [Which I would say is a bit over the top a requirement.] If there
>> shall exist at least one order in which they can complete, it could be
>> legal. But let's ask our language lawyers...
> There is no order, because all tasks terminate together (9.3 (6..9)).
> 
> From the task you consider, you go to its master; if all tasks that
> depend on that master are terminatable, then the whole bunch terminates
> together. Therefore, adding a task cannot make tasks terminate if they
> could not terminate without the extra task.

Thank you for clarification.

Thus per design there is no way to make a non-trivial library-level task to
complete without means outside the library level. Either some OS-specific
stuff or an explicit action/declaration in a nested scope is required.

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