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,a5449b9a03812b50 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-07-30 12:18:00 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!colt.net!kibo.news.demon.net!news.demon.co.uk!demon!pogner.demon.co.uk!not-for-mail From: Simon Wright Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: GNAT documentation question Date: 30 Jul 2002 20:01:38 +0100 Organization: Pushface Sender: simon@smaug Message-ID: References: <3D406C6B.9DE867E4@boeing.com> <5ee5b646.0207281028.607ea804@posting.google.com> <3D458108.A5D88B80@raytheon.com> <5ee5b646.0207292018.663f3d95@posting.google.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: pogner.demon.co.uk X-NNTP-Posting-Host: pogner.demon.co.uk:62.49.19.209 X-Trace: news.demon.co.uk 1028056658 nnrp-01:13837 NO-IDENT pogner.demon.co.uk:62.49.19.209 X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:27492 Date: 2002-07-30T20:01:38+01:00 List-Id: dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar) writes: > That's straightforward. If you want Annex D dispatching rules > (that's the semantically significant issue here), then you need to > use the pragmas documented in Annex D to have this effect. I would > be surprised if there was anything else to this issue. In other > words, real time priorities are not an end here, they are simply a > means to an end, the end being the proper implementation of annex D > features. Our point of view was: * we have a mixed language, multi-process program * we need parts of it to run with priorities higher than those of normal processes * we can use priocntl to get this to happen (this was Solaris) * wow! if we run as root, GNAT does what we want! (this was 3.11, I think) so the question of whether we had Annex D dispatching rules never entered our heads. We were delighted to have found a solution, so never raised the question with ACT. Had we still been supported on that contract when we discovered the changed behaviour, we would of course have asked!