From: Robert A Duff <bobduff@world.std.com>
Subject: Re: Ada Tasks vs Linux processes
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 18:00:18 GMT
Date: 2001-04-02T18:00:18+00:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <wccd7avw5al.fsf@world.std.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 8H2y6.21501$ea6.2010619@news1.frmt1.sfba.home.com
tmoran@acm.org writes:
> LRM D.9(7) says the implementation must document the minimum delay
> value that actually causes the task to block, while D.9(5) says a
> delay of zero does not block, but is only "potentially blocking".
> Even among compilers that don't implement Annex D, delay 0.0 usually
> does not unnecessarily block, while any positive delay usually blocks
> for two clock ticks, which on some systems can be a surprisingly long
> time.
Right, but "delay 0.0;" will cause the task to go to the end of its
ready queue, so if there's any other task of the same priority waiting
to run, it will run. So "delay 0.0;" does what some systems call
"yield". (Assuming Annex D.)
- Bob
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2001-04-02 18:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2001-04-01 15:27 Ada Tasks vs Linux processes Frank
2001-04-01 22:32 ` David C. Hoos, Sr.
2001-04-02 17:30 ` tmoran
2001-04-02 18:00 ` Robert A Duff [this message]
2001-04-02 18:20 ` Ehud Lamm
2001-04-02 22:17 ` Jeffrey Carter
2001-04-04 16:36 ` tmoran
2001-04-04 17:18 ` Gary Scott
2001-04-04 19:18 ` tmoran
2001-04-02 19:57 ` Frank
2001-04-03 11:28 ` Matthias Kretschmer
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox