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: 103376,3e11ef4efc073f6b
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news2.google.com!npeer03.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!cyclone1.gnilink.net!gnilink.net!nx02.iad.newshosting.com!newshosting.com!198.186.190.251.MISMATCH!transit4.readnews.com!news-out.readnews.com!news-xxxfer.readnews.com!panix!newsfeed-00.mathworks.com!nntp.TheWorld.com!not-for-mail
From: Robert A Duff <bobduff@shell01.TheWorld.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: requeue with abort and timed call
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2008 16:42:09 -0500
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Message-ID: <wccmyeg6kpa.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
References: 
 <2a60b044-6a5c-4ce6-93e6-6eeefc8806c3@l33g2000pri.googlegroups.com>
 <1f6rcb1qwt7vx.1mckzyk9ucohf.dlg@40tude.net>
 <84c56781-1cb1-4d86-be14-e66fc9fdade6@w1g2000prk.googlegroups.com>
 <7p8onuvzdz18$.1m1dq8n3b52q5.dlg@40tude.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: shell01.theworld.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: pcls6.std.com 1230500529 31488 192.74.137.71 (28 Dec 2008 21:42:09
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@TheWorld.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2008 21:42:09 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: Gnus/5.1008 (Gnus v5.10.8) Emacs/21.3 (irix)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:MyoSX90FIH6dvG1Lrz0dpz+XNnI=
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:4075
Date: 2008-12-28T16:42:09-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> writes:

> On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 07:53:44 -0800 (PST), christoph.grein@eurocopter.com
> wrote:
>
>> I do not see a problem with aborting. Why should the entry call be
>> aborted?
>
> Because the request remains *queued* after expiration of the timed entry
> call.
>
> -----------------
> If GNAT's implementation is conform to RM, then it is a language bug. The
> behavior of a timed entry call shall not depend on whether the entry body
> is occasionally split into several pieces glued by requeue-with-abort
> statements. I am not a language lawyer, but I doubt that such a huge issue
> was overlooked.

I suspect this is a bug in GNAT, not a bug in the RM.

But I admit I didn't study the example very carefully.

- Bob