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.dca3.giganews.com!backlog3.nntp.dca3.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feeder01.blueworldhosting.com!peer02.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!post02.iad.highwinds-media.com!fx05.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Brad Moore <brad.moore@shaw.ca>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1;
 rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Safety of unprotected concurrent operations on constant objects
References: <slrnlm6mkg.i0l.lithiumcat@nat.rebma.instinctive.eu>
 <7403d130-8b42-43cd-a0f1-53ba34b46141@googlegroups.com>
 <slrnlmals8.i0l.lithiumcat@nat.rebma.instinctive.eu>
 <lya9aybkxc.fsf@pushface.org> <lk41jr$1vl$1@dont-email.me>
 <slrnlmbs1n.i0l.lithiumcat@nat.rebma.instinctive.eu>
 <6c2cd5d4-a44c-4c18-81a3-a0e87d25cd9e@googlegroups.com>
 <slrnlmcoqd.i0l.lithiumcat@nat.rebma.instinctive.eu>
 <waw9v.109142$f85.65293@fx19.iad>
In-Reply-To: <waw9v.109142$f85.65293@fx19.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <scy9v.1071029$2N5.142769@fx05.iad>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.145.219.148
X-Complaints-To: internet.abuse@sjrb.ca
X-Trace: 1399238552 68.145.219.148 (Sun, 04 May 2014 21:22:32 UTC)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 04 May 2014 21:22:32 UTC
Date: Mon, 05 May 2014 15:23:33 -0600
X-Received-Bytes: 2346
X-Received-Body-CRC: 3138057492
X-Original-Bytes: 2588
Xref: number.nntp.dca.giganews.com comp.lang.ada:186223
Date: 2014-05-05T15:23:33-06:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 05/05/2014 1:04 PM, Brad Moore wrote:
> On 04/05/2014 9:57 AM, Natasha Kerensikova wrote:
>> On 2014-05-04, sbelmont700@gmail.com <sbelmont700@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Sunday, May 4, 2014 3:46:00 AM UTC-4, Natasha Kerensikova wrote:
>>>>
>>>> So I guess to correctly frame it as a question, that would be: how
>>>> can I
>>>>
>>>> have a map capable of concurrent reads with minimal wheel reinvention?
>>>>
>>>
>>> You really can't.  You can either reinvent the wheel in your own
>>> task-safe manner,
>>
>> I find it extremely hard to believe that there is no such wheel existing
>> out there. Standard containers and Booch components might not fit the
>> particular requirements, but I would bet there are some existing
>> container
>> implementations that fit.
>
> I believe as long as the use of the container involves only read
> operations (functions with in parameters), it should be safe to use
> concurrently.

I need to correct myself. In GNAT any read or write operations on a 
container that set tamper flags are ironically not task safe, so that 
does restrict quite a bit what one can do concurrently.