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=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,MAILING_LIST_MULTI autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,4ef4bf3098ab117 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news2.google.com!proxad.net!freenix!enst.fr!melchior!cuivre.fr.eu.org!melchior.frmug.org!not-for-mail From: Stephen Leake Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Ada compiler differences Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 09:05:50 -0400 Organization: Cuivre, Argent, Or Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: lovelace.ada-france.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: melchior.cuivre.fr.eu.org 1098277592 69853 212.85.156.195 (20 Oct 2004 13:06:32 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@melchior.cuivre.fr.eu.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 13:06:32 +0000 (UTC) To: comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org Return-Path: X-Authentication-Warning: fajita.toad.net: apache set sender to stephen_leake@acm.org using -f User-Agent: Internet Messaging Program (IMP) 3.2.1 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-20030616-p10 (Debian) at ada-france.org X-BeenThere: comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Gateway to the comp.lang.ada Usenet newsgroup" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:5515 Date: 2004-10-20T09:05:50-04:00 Simon Wright writes: > Stephen Leake writes: > > > Hmm. If the Language Reference Manual does not _explicitly_ state > > that a particular function is safe for calling from multiple tasks, > > then you must assume it is not, and provide your own layer of task > > protection for it. I suspect Nick has been violating this rule. > > What, even Generic_Elementary_Functions.Arctan?! Well, you have a point. Although, on a system without floating point hardware, this _could_ use a global cache of previously computed results, which _could_ be not task safe. > On the other hand, anyone who called Float_Random from two tasks > *with the same generator* would be entitled to expect truly random > results. I think you have to be prepared to use your wits sometimes > .. It could also be argued that the LRM _should_ say more about what is guarranteed to be task safe. -- -- Stephe ___________________________________________________________ This mail sent using ToadMail -- Web based e-mail @ ToadNet