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.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feeder01.blueworldhosting.com!feeder.erje.net!eu.feeder.erje.net!gandalf.srv.welterde.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: Protected handlers & entry bodies
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2015 14:18:16 -0600
Organization: Jacob Sparre Andersen Research & Innovation
Message-ID: <m9joq8$8ga$1@loke.gir.dk>
References: <lyy4ozof2x.fsf@pushface.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: rrsoftware.com
X-Trace: loke.gir.dk 1421698697 8714 24.196.82.226 (19 Jan 2015 20:18:17 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: news@jacob-sparre.dk
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2015 20:18:17 +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
Xref: number.nntp.giganews.com comp.lang.ada:191915
Date: 2015-01-19T14:18:16-06:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Simon Wright" <simon@pushface.org> wrote in message 
news:lyy4ozof2x.fsf@pushface.org...
> This is for a Ravenscar RTS.
>
> In GNAT, if an protected entry's guard is opened by a protected
> procedure, the entry code is executed in the thread of control (task)
> that called the protected procedure. I haven't looked in detail at the
> normal RTS, but I suspect that after a protected procedure call each of
> the entries is serviced (the guard is evaluated, and if open the entry
> code is called). In Ravenscar, there's only one entry, so things are
> a bit simpler.
>
> The generated code appears to do exactly the same for protected
> procedure handlers, in which case the entry code is going to be executed
> in the thread of the ISR.

Here you lost me. A protected procedure /= an entry.

> This may well require restrictions on what can be done in the entry. Is
> this covered by C.3.1(17)?

What entry? There's no entry in a protected procedure. C.3.1(17) allows 
restrictions on what appears in the body of a interrupt-called protected 
procedure. One would expect that to ban anything that causes trouble. I'd 
expect any sort of blocking operation to be banned there (but of course they 
already are bounded errors by 9.5.1(8)).

                           Randy.