Re: Protected handlers & entry bodies

["Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>]

"Simon Wright" <simon@pushface.org> wrote in message 
news:lyh9vlnk8v.fsf@pushface.org...
> "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!

Good point. I read that too quickly and confused protected_body with 
subprogram_body.

                     Randy.