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-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,e27871fabb6a1f9f
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-07-09 10:30:04 PST
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news.kjsl.com!newsfeed.mathworks.com!news.mathworks.com!uunet!ash.uu.net!world!bobduff
From: Robert A Duff <bobduff@world.std.com>
Subject: Re: Concurrency & I/O
Sender: bobduff@world.std.com (Robert A Duff)
Message-ID: <wccpubaggg9.fsf@world.std.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2001 17:28:22 GMT
References: <t4KZ6.134905$qv3.39151261@nnrp5-w.sbc.net>
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.3/Emacs 19.34
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:9685
Date: 2001-07-09T17:28:22+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Ed Colbert" <colbert@abssw.com> writes:

> Can someone confirm that it's still implementation defined whether I/O
> operations (Put, Get, 'Write, 'Read) are atomic, blocking, or subject to
> Priority_Ceiling.  In quick review of the manual & rational, I found the
> following:

I don't fully understand the question.
I/O operations are "potentially blocking".
I/O operations that can't be done immediately may block the whole
process, or just the current task (this is implementation dependent).

'Write and 'Read are not I/O operations -- they just call the underlying
stream operations, and the underlying stream might or might not do I/O,
and might or might not block.

None of these things are atomic.  If you have two tasks simultaneously
writing to standard output, that's erroneous (although you might
get away with it, with interspersed output).

- Bob