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: 103376,5dba30d6260ef552 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Simon Wright Subject: Re: Elaboration Order Date: 1999/11/20 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 551071105 X-NNTP-Posting-Host: pogner.demon.co.uk:158.152.70.98 References: <80pcdf$7u5$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <80s1h2$6fu$1@nnrp1.deja.com> X-Trace: news.demon.co.uk 943139032 nnrp-09:258 NO-IDENT pogner.demon.co.uk:158.152.70.98 Organization: At Home Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net Date: 1999-11-20T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Robert Dewar writes: > Another issue has to do with tasks. It is generally risky to > have library tasks starting at elaboration time, since it > means that you have arbitrary code running before the main > package elaboration is complete. If you create such tasks, > you must very carefully review them to make sure that they > do not cause elaboration problems. And your compiler (well, binder) may not be able to tell whether there is an elaboration problem or not; _you_ may know that the task only makes a problematic call after it has been allowed to start via some rendezvous, which won't happen until the whole program has elaborated, but the _compiler_ may not. The cases where I've had this problem have both felt a bit unsatisfactory when I reviewed the design.