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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,a011e82e0079f0ea X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-08-13 12:17:05 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!diablo.theplanet.net!news.indigo.ie!feeder2.news.heanet.ie!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada From: Colin_Paul_Gloster@ACM.org (Colin Paul Gloster) Subject: Re: Ravenscar - Multiple Protected Entries References: <3F35AFA7.1030905@spam.com> Reply-To: Colin_Paul_Gloster@ACM.org Message-ID: User-Agent: slrn/0.9.7.0 (SunOS) Organization: Dublin City University (DCU) Cache-Post-Path: ns1-ext.dcu.ie!unknown@camac.dcu.ie X-Cache: nntpcache 3.0.1 (see http://www.nntpcache.org/) Date: 13 Aug 2003 19:17:05 GMT NNTP-Posting-Date: 13 Aug 2003 19:17:05 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 136.206.1.1 X-Trace: 1060802225 reader.news.heanet.ie 9259 [::ffff:136.206.1.1]:51152 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:41409 Date: 2003-08-13T19:17:05+00:00 List-Id: 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 .)