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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!mx02.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: =?iso-8859-1?Q?GNAT=A0and?= Tasklets Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2014 12:19:57 +0100 Organization: cbb software GmbH Message-ID: References: <455d0987-734a-4505-bb39-37bfd1a2cc6b@googlegroups.com> <8277a521-7317-4839-b0b6-97f8155be1a4@googlegroups.com> <9e1d2b9f-1b97-4679-8eec-5ba75f3c357c@googlegroups.com> Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de NNTP-Posting-Host: YGNMlxhiQ90vAyH0QA4qPw.user.speranza.aioe.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/2.0.15.1 X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2 Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:24111 Date: 2014-12-18T12:19:57+01:00 List-Id: On Thu, 18 Dec 2014 02:32:44 -0800 (PST), vincent.diemunsch@gmail.com wrote: > Finaly, I really hope that the new version of the langage will keep Ada > simple and add "intelligence" in compilers and not add different new > features with : > - tasks for kernel threads > - coroutines or tasklets for user-level threads > - jobs for lightweight threads, > because this would be a major conceptual regression. I believe that > aspects on tasks could be an inelegant but decent way to solve the > problem. Ideally yes, but if you consider the implications, you will have to reconsider protected actions and rendezvous. E.g. a protected action interlocking co-routines driven by the same thread do not need locking. Do you want to get advantage from this? Or, a rendezvous between them is a deadlock? Statically resolved? What with exception propagation on both ends? Forbidden? etc. -- Regards, Dmitry A. Kazakov http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de