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=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Path: 
 border1.nntp.dca3.giganews.com!backlog3.nntp.dca3.giganews.com!border3.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!goblin2!goblin.stu.neva.ru!reality.xs3.de!news.jacob-sparre.dk!loke.jacob-sparre.dk!pnx.dk!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: GNAT 4.8 atomic access to 64-bit objects
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 18:30:52 -0600
Organization: Jacob Sparre Andersen Research & Innovation
Message-ID: <l6m8js$ag6$1@loke.gir.dk>
References: <1neco99j6szmk$.ayjyo0uds8a5.dlg@40tude.net>
 <alpine.DEB.2.10.1311152007300.5296@debian>
 <h7hi7m1nbl7e.14h9bnbgzis5a$.dlg@40tude.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: static-69-95-181-76.mad.choiceone.net
X-Trace: loke.gir.dk 1385080252 10758 69.95.181.76 (22 Nov 2013 00:30:52 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: news@jacob-sparre.dk
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 00:30:52 +0000 (UTC)
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157
X-Original-Bytes: 1906
Xref: number.nntp.dca.giganews.com comp.lang.ada:183963
Date: 2013-11-21T18:30:52-06:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> wrote in message 
news:h7hi7m1nbl7e.14h9bnbgzis5a$.dlg@40tude.net...
...
> * I wonder why RM does not mandate pragma Atomic always legal. After all,
> the compiler could always implement it using a hidden protected object.
> Except when access occurs on the context of a protected action. Which is
> statically known (or else program is erroneous). Within a protected action
> it already atomic.

No, it's not statically known what happens in a protected action, since the 
body of a protected subprogram can call other subprograms (protected or not) 
in other packages, and those other package bodies need not even exist when 
the protected subprogram is compiled. (And in any case, Ada does not require 
any inlining, implicit or otherwise.)

                                Randy.