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-Thread: 103376,b8b8a54001adc4d2
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: Vinzent 'Gadget' Hoefler <nntp-2005-01@t-domaingrabbing.de>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Possible Ada deficiency?
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 13:57:13 +0000
Message-ID: <2079224.1WssEAdSMv@jellix.jlfencey.com>
References: <1104516913.718856.94090@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>
 <gemini.ia2kxp009ql0r02vo.nick.roberts@acm.org>
 <16jm4u4b7j5bh.5r4falzh3k6a$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <mailman.41.1105375597.527.comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org>
 <ullb1rwsr.fsf@obry.net> <9ls4dpw9xkri$.1t4b3d8zglukq.dlg@40tude.net>
 <2106909.XdsyxhICSC@jellix.jlfencey.com>
 <nk68xdz0ujw8.b0nqn99a02o2$.dlg@40tude.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
X-Trace: individual.net iloLLw8ntN4Qblfd9zvM0QI3me1G1G+xao2dV+DIa3or1T5ePW
X-Phone: +41 62 961 13 52
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:7641
Date: 2005-01-11T13:57:13+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:

> On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 07:24:10 +0000, Vinzent 'Gadget' Hoefler wrote:
> 
>> Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
>> 
>>> I would leave all optimization issues to the compiler.
>> 
>> Hmm. Then: What about pragma Volatile? pragma Atomic?
> 
> Atomic and volatile are not about optimization. They describe a
> contract. It is wrong to use pragmas for them. Maybe in C++, which
> does not deal with concurrency it would be appropriate, but definitely
> not in Ada. It is clear why these pragmas appeared.

Atomic and/or Volatile are not necessarily about concurrency. Sometimes
they are just about hardware.

> With full  ADT an "atomic Integer" will implement abstract protected
> object. No need in any pragmas!

Hmm. So instead of

|   type Timer_Mode is
|   record
|      BCD : Count;
|      CM  : Count_Mode;
|      RWM : Read_Write_Mode;
|      SC  : Counter_Select;
|   end record;
|   [aspect clauses]
|   pragma Atomic (Timer_Mode);

you'd like to write

|   type Timer_Mode is
|   atomic record
|     [...]

?

Hmm.

>> Or all these interesting ones from Annexes D, E & H?
> 
> It depends on each concrete case.

Remote_Call_Interface? Interrupt_Priority? Attach_Handler?
Inspection_Point?


Vinzent.