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: 
 border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feeder01.blueworldhosting.com!feeder.erje.net!eu.feeder.erje.net!weretis.net!feeder4.news.weretis.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: Wed, 21 Jan 2015 14:39:33 -0600
Organization: Jacob Sparre Andersen Research & Innovation
Message-ID: <m9p2q5$426$1@loke.gir.dk>
References: <lyy4ozof2x.fsf@pushface.org>
 <m9joq8$8ga$1@loke.gir.dk><lytwzmo3kp.fsf@pushface.org>
 <m9mjfl$94q$1@loke.gir.dk> <lyh9vlnk8v.fsf@pushface.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: rrsoftware.com
X-Trace: loke.gir.dk 1421872774 4166 24.196.82.226 (21 Jan 2015 20:39:34 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: news@jacob-sparre.dk
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2015 20:39:34 +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:191984
Date: 2015-01-21T14:39:33-06:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"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.