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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,257f84dada6fa64a
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Robert A Duff <bobduff@world.std.com>
Subject: Re: Propagation of unhandled exceptions during elaboration,
 in a tasking program
Date: 1999/11/02
Message-ID: <wcchfj4yg37.fsf@world.std.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 543574802
Sender: bobduff@world.std.com (Robert A Duff)
References: <7vjvb3$kn5$1@hobbes2.crc.com> <381E44F2.CA734022@callnetuk.com>
 <7vmj34$oc2$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1999-11-02T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-deja.com> writes:

> Why the latter, this is most certainly not a target or
> implementation specific issue, but just one of standard
> Ada semantics (waiting for task termination).

But the issue was whether an error message got printed, and I don't
think the RM has anything to say about that.  To me, it seems friendly
to print the message *before* doing any task waiting.  After all, the
program might well wait forever, since the main procedure never causes
some tasks to go ahead.  Of course, it's not sensible to print *any*
messages on many embedded systems.

Also, there's an obscure Implementation Permission in 10.2(30), which
*allows* the implementation to abort all the tasks in this situation.
I don't think any implementations actually do that.

- Bob