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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,fc232b1f37897ed0
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Matthew Heaney <matthew_heaney@acm.org>
Subject: Re: D.10
Date: 1999/04/13
Message-ID: <m3btgstzx7.fsf@mheaney.ni.net>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 465874335
References: <m3ogkuuriu.fsf@mheaney.ni.net>
 <7eu6ud$8lc$1@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net> <m3lnfxtan3.fsf@mheaney.ni.net>
 <7evbm6$oto$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <7evc2d$p9i$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 06:21:34 PDT
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1999-04-13T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-dejanews.com> writes:

> In article <7evbm6$oto$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
>   Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
> > I must say I don't see any ambiguity in the RM here, but
> > I have trouble with your question because the terminology
> > is vague ("A is atomic wrt B" does not have a clear
> > meaning in this context).
> 
> This is a followup to myself to make my point a bit
> clearer. You can talk about operations being atomic, but
> not entities. So if your question is
> 
>   Is the operation Suspend_Until_True atomic with
>   respect to itself?
> 
> Then I think the useful answer is that the question is
> meaningless, and the technical answer is no!


Let me ask the question another way.

Is an invocation of operation Suspend_Until_True on a suspension object
by one task atomic with respect to an invocation of Suspend_Until_True
on the same suspension object by another task?