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,ea9fbf0f08e5af8a X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news2.google.com!news2.google.com!newsfeed2.dallas1.level3.net!news.level3.com!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!newsswitch.lcs.mit.edu!nntp.TheWorld.com!not-for-mail From: Robert A Duff Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Delayed deallocation of non-terminated task in Gnat? Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 14:21:10 -0400 Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA Message-ID: References: <31ba531d-fa8e-40f3-97bc-c9112b329fe2@14g2000prv.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: shell01.theworld.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: pcls6.std.com 1314814869 26886 192.74.137.71 (31 Aug 2011 18:21:09 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@TheWorld.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 18:21:09 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Gnus/5.1008 (Gnus v5.10.8) Emacs/21.3 (irix) Cancel-Lock: sha1:LnIRgTpds2b94eLq0NfxF7YvCYE= Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:21766 Date: 2011-08-31T14:21:10-04:00 List-Id: Adam Beneschan writes: > Actually, I just found this in the Ada 83 manual (13.10.1(8)): > > "If X designates a task object, the call FREE(X) [where FREE is an > instance of Unchecked_Deallocation] has no effect on the task > desginated by the value of the task object. The same holds for any > subcomponent of the object designated by X, if this subcomponent is a > task object." > > This language got dropped in Ada 95, but I think it was intended that > these still be the semantics, for a task without discriminants (Ada 83 > did not allow task discriminants). I'm not sure why the language was > omitted; ... It might have to do with the fact that task values don't formally "designate" anymore. Anyway, it doesn't need to say anything. If it doesn't say anything happens to the task, then nothing happens -- it just keeps running. It doesn't say U_D waits for it to terminate. It doesn't say U_D aborts it. It doesn't say that U_D should set all variables to 17. So none of these things happen. > One thing that bothers me a bit, although I don't know if it bothers > me enough to request an RM change: I suggestion you refrain. ;-) This sort of nitpicking is just a waste of time for the ARG. Any wording change wouldn't affect the behavior of any programmer, nor any implementer, so why bother? - Bob