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: a07f3367d7,385c146dd3112519
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news2.google.com!npeer03.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.glorb.com!news2.glorb.com!solaris.cc.vt.edu!news.vt.edu!elk.ncren.net!newsswitch.lcs.mit.edu!nntp.TheWorld.com!not-for-mail
From: Robert A Duff <bobduff@shell01.TheWorld.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Private or public task ?
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 11:17:16 -0500
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Message-ID: <wcc7hqljcab.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
References: 
 <a35584dd-8693-484d-918d-758940dccfe8@d37g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>
 <hki3p7$bas$1@tornado.tornevall.net>
 <38a0a3f9-b4a0-48f3-98c9-63b03fe03aca@q4g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>
 <e714f043-9fed-4e2b-b3d2-180b0364f0cf@d27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>
 <f7048897-bce0-4e1d-8f49-85fe274d7292@v25g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>
 <narrkh.9g.ln@hunter.axlog.fr>
 <ca04a621-bdf9-4958-b395-6e59126e7511@x22g2000yqx.googlegroups.com>
 <8bf887ec-38cc-4327-8cf6-38af4925e786@a5g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>
 <dc6ac07e-f099-4363-8890-a11a2ae99760@j31g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: shell01.theworld.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: pcls6.std.com 1265818625 18437 192.74.137.71 (10 Feb 2010 16:17:05
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@TheWorld.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 16:17:05 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: Gnus/5.1008 (Gnus v5.10.8) Emacs/21.3 (irix)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:gNXfCc81RYUBZqvm/NsvpWOczlE=
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:9092
Date: 2010-02-10T11:17:16-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Martin <martin.dowie@btopenworld.com> writes:

> It's isn't predicatable - it will delay for /at least/
> Some_Static_Constant.

Well, implementations are supposed to wake the task up
as soon as possible after the delay expires.
We don't really have a way to say that in RM terms,
but an implementation that delays for an extra
second, for example, should probably be considered
broken.

>..It's up to the task scheduling algorithm (plus
> the rest of the program! ;-) as to what happen next...and when!

Yeah, the rest of the program is key.  But that's the case even
without delays.  For example, suppose a protected procedure
says, "X := X + 1;".  Looks pretty bounded.  But it can
get preempted by a higher priority task, which can
go off and do stuff for a long and unbounded time.

You have to take care to get your priorities right.

- Bob