Re: Ravenscar - Multiple Protected Entries

[Colin_Paul_Gloster@ACM.org (Colin Paul Gloster)]

My claim yesterday of unique priorities
is also refuted by
"[..] you can even have a case on which
two tasks have the same priority" from page
27, slide 31 of Version 1.1 . 30 November, 2000
of "Final Report . Phase 1" of Experimental
Assessment of Value Added to Software Reuse by Ada 95
Technology ESTEC/Contract No.14618/00/NL/MV
which can be obtained from
OBOSS_ported_to_ORK_final_report.pdf.

Sorry to Jeff Carter and Stephan Heinemann and everyone else.

(If you read the page in context, it had actually
been intended that the clause quoted from the
report was specifically just about base priorities
but it is also true that aside from identical base
priorities, Ravenscar allows an active priority to
make a priority level common to more than one task.)

(I may have made the posted
news:slrnbji5jp.jmh.Colin_Paul_Gloster@camac.dcu.ie
by not properly remembering
"WARNING 3.2
ORK users are recommended to assign distinct priorities to all tasks and
                  2
protected objects.

[..]
  2
   ORK allows priorities to be shared -as long as in keeping
withe[with the] ceiling priority protocol- but this is
not a commendable practice unless the task and protected object
population exceeds the allowable range of
priorities. [..]"
from FTP://OpenRavenscar.org/openravenscar/opm2-2.pdf .)