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: 103376,e81fd3a32a1cacd2
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news3.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local01.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.comcast.com!news.comcast.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2007 06:55:39 -0600
Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2007 07:47:44 -0500
From: Jeffrey Creem <jeff@thecreems.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.10 (Windows/20070221)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Does Ada tasking profit from multi-core cpus?
References: <rgcukvs1j6ck$.1vjj69zzy1h56$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <yfydnaboycG2YHHYnZ2dnUVZ_tadnZ2d@comcast.com>
 <esjcva$2m9$1@newsserver.cilea.it>
In-Reply-To: <esjcva$2m9$1@newsserver.cilea.it>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <lg40c4-uk5.ln1@newserver.thecreems.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.147.74.171
X-Trace: 
 sv3-corK6QDUgRbJJ4eFcoLhwAZPdkAVGmokXEEQ3gQQJicZqzjWIrfT4Dl0KmvFk7t0VnNIgjdYtZ2zLcj!ELajkSDQiL8HA9EppC8L8WYykEos20LQaM8eHtwsK3MDT9fQNN8jVhXQVqP8qSeR8r6tI0iPwo5d!Z+M=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@comcast.net
X-DMCA-Complaints-To: dmca@comcast.net
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint
 properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.34
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:9719
Date: 2007-03-06T07:47:44-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Colin Paul Gloster wrote:
> Tom Moran posted on Mon, 05 Mar 2007 23:33:31 -0600:
>           
> "> 1. Whether protected object's functions are indeed executed concurrently
>> when come from the tasks running on different cores?
> 
>    A quick test with a single protected object containing a single,
> long-duration, function appears to have just one call of the function
> active at a time, even if the function is called from two different tasks.
> 
>   global_flag : integer := 0;
> 
>   protected body pt is
>     function f(id : integer) return natural is
>       change_count : natural := 0;
>     begin
>       global_flag := id;
>       for i in 1 .. 10_000_000 loop
>         if global_flag /= id then
>           change_count := change_count;
>           global_flag := id;
>         end if;
>       end loop;
>       return change_count;
>     end f;
>   end pt;
> 
> One task calls pt.f(id=>1) and the other calls pt.f(id=>2).  They both get
> a result of zero back from their function call.  This was with Gnat 3.15p
> Windows 2000 on a dual core Pentium.  If I change it from a single
> protected object to two instances of a protected type, then the function
> calls are overlapped and return non-zero results.
> 
> [..]"
> 
> 
> I am grateful to Thomas Moran for such a brilliant demonstration of
> how poor the so-called GNU Ada Translator can be.


I don't think this proves that the two tasks are not overlapping. It 
probably proves that if you specifically write broken code it is indeed 
sometimes broken.