From: Simon Wright <simon@pushface.org>
Subject: Re: Protected handlers & entry bodies
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2015 22:46:24 +0000
Date: 2015-01-20T22:46:24+00:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <lyh9vlnk8v.fsf@pushface.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: m9mjfl$94q$1@loke.gir.dk
"Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com> writes:
> I see. Your point is that GNAT is buggy and that's likely to cause problems
> in some obscure and non-reproducible cases.
>
> But this has nothing to do with the language. Just because there is a
> permission to do something (use some other task to execute an entry body)
> does not mean that it should be used, especially if that is potentially
> causing problems.
Not sure that GNAT's actually buggy. Re-reading C.3.1(17):
When the aspects Attach_Handler or Interrupt_Handler are specified
for a protected procedure, the implementation is allowed to impose
implementation-defined restrictions on the corresponding
protected_type_declaration and protected_body.
it seems to me it'd be fair to claim that restrictions could be imposed
on entry bodies. With my current implementation, one such would be to
disallow the use of Ada.Real_Time.Clock!
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-01-20 22:46 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-01-18 23:15 Protected handlers & entry bodies Simon Wright
2015-01-19 20:18 ` Randy Brukardt
2015-01-19 21:36 ` Simon Wright
2015-01-20 22:05 ` Randy Brukardt
2015-01-20 22:46 ` Simon Wright [this message]
2015-01-21 20:39 ` Randy Brukardt
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox