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: 103376,790d824907970cc3 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Robert A Duff Subject: Re: Exception Propagation Date: 1999/06/15 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 489857560 Sender: bobduff@world.std.com (Robert A Duff) References: <7jjbl4$n79$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <7jh857$ej$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <375CC549.7EDFB885@spam.com> <0nc73.5376$y6.3195132@WReNphoon3> <7jlud1$l76$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <7k393k$sb5$1@nnrp1.deja.com> Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1999-06-15T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: dennison@telepath.com writes: > In my experience if you try to use an unprotected Text_IO in last-ditch > exception handlers in a multitask program, you are almost *guaranteed* > to get an exception in your exception handlers. When one task dies, any > task attempting to rendezvous with it will die too. Tasks looking to > rendezvous with those newly dead tasks will then die. Thus task > terminations tend to spread through the system like a cold through a > daycare center. The odds of more than one task trying to simultaniously > do text I/O from its exception handler gets to be awfully close to 1.0 Yes, I suppose you're right. But if the run-time system were in charge of giving that message, it might be able to do something very low-level and simple. That's one of the things that bothers me about the way Ada (and/or implementations) deals with unhandled exceptions. When something bad happens, there's a whole lot of mechanism invoked unwinding stacks and doing finalization -- I want to see an error message *before* all that stuff obscures what originally went wrong. - Bob -- Change robert to bob to get my real email address. Sorry.