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: 103376,5d05ccde5cefb836
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Simon Wright <simon@pogner.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Blocking protected ops (was: Tasks and C/C++ code)
Date: 1998/11/26
Message-ID: <x7vlnkzx7ok.fsf@pogner.demon.co.uk>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 416010969
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: pogner.demon.co.uk:158.152.70.98
References: <364702E5.F6987321@hiwaay.net> <729ndu$jfo$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
 	<72b35b$pll$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <87btm52jwl.fsf@zaphod.enst.fr>
 	<3654746F.3C297E56@elca-matrix.ch> <87k90qunxl.fsf@zaphod.enst.fr>
 	<36599BE3.BA30555B@elca-matrix.ch> <3659b3a8.386623@news.pacbell.net>
 	<365AD980.5729FCD8@elca-matrix.ch> 	<EACHUS.98Nov24143823@spectre.mitre.org>
 	<365BE117.59209A5@elca-matrix.ch> <EACHUS.98Nov25183406@spectre.mitre.org>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net
X-Trace: news.demon.co.uk 912116360 nnrp-10:3052 NO-IDENT
 pogner.demon.co.uk:158.152.70.98
Organization: At Home
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1998-11-26T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus) writes:

> In article <365BE117.59209A5@elca-matrix.ch> Mats Weber <Mats.Weber@elca-matrix.ch> writes:
> 
>  > I don't think so. Look closely at 9.5.1(16&18). Subprograms imported
>  > with pragma Import are not covered.
> 
>    Eighteen only says that language-defined subprograms are not
> potentially blocking unless the RM says otherwise.  Language-defined
> here is a technical term applying to subprograms defined by the
> Reference Manual.  Sixteen is the key here.  Within Ada, the RM can
> define what is a potentially blocking subprogram, outside the
> programmer has to figure it out for himself, which is why this is a
> bounded error.

I for one understood the language of 9.5.8 as meaning that _only_ the
operations stated in 9-16 are 'potentially blocking', ie the list is a
definition of what it is to be 'potentially blocking' and hence
subject to possible checking by the runtime.

There must be a difference between bad design and illegal design!