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=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,16594902ce57591b X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news2.google.com!news4.google.com!newshub.sdsu.edu!elnk-nf2-pas!newsfeed.earthlink.net!stamper.news.pas.earthlink.net!newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net.POSTED!14bb18d8!not-for-mail Sender: Matthew Heaney@MHEANEYIBMT43 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Multitasking and containers References: From: Matthew Heaney Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2006 12:05:20 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 4.238.121.243 X-Complaints-To: abuse@earthlink.net X-Trace: newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net 1164369920 4.238.121.243 (Fri, 24 Nov 2006 04:05:20 PST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2006 04:05:20 PST Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:7687 Date: 2006-11-24T12:05:20+00:00 List-Id: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" writes: > [ I don't know if ARM 2005 permits mutable implementations of read > operations on the containers. I suppose it does, so the need to lock upon > read. ] Yes, some read operations mutate the container temporarily. That's why the user needs to always synchronize access to the container (even for read operations) if the container can be accessed by several tasks.